The Past, Present, and Future of Progress
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Past, Present, and Future of Progress M. O. Lozano-Justice Correspondence | [email protected] Citation | Lozano-Justice, M. O. 2019. “The Past, Present, and Future of Progress.” Journal of Big History, IV (1): 69-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v4i1.4140. DOI | http://dx.doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v4i1.4140 The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretense but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea—something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer sacrifice to [. .]” —Joseph Conrad (Heart of Darkness) “The story of human progress is truly heroic. It is glorious. It is uplifting. It is even, I daresay, spiritual.” —Steven Pinker (Enlightenment Now) “[I]f you dream of a society in which truth reigns supreme and myths are ignored, you have little to expect from Homo Sapiens. Better to try your luck with chimps.”—Yuval Noah Harari (21 Lessons for the 21st Century) At a time when anger and anomie lightenment project worked reasona- Both men agree that we are living appear to be the order of the day, and bly well but that when properly appre- at a time when it is difficult “to find the ideals of the Enlightenment are ciated, “the ideals of the Enlighten- meaning and purpose if traditional being bombarded from every direc- ment are, in fact, stirring, inspiring, religious beliefs about an immortal tion, Yuval Noah Harari and Steven noble—a reason to live” (Pinker 6). soul are undermined by our best sci- Pinker have entered the fray once Harari's 21 Lessons for the 21st Century ence” (Pinker 3) and that we are, more to remind us that all is not lost picks up at the point where Pinker therefore, “left with the task of creat- and to ensure us that reports of the leaves off. After establishing early in ing an updated story of the death of liberalism are greatly exagger- his book that liberalism is (as Pinker world” (Harari 16). In a world where ated. Taken together, Pinker and Ha- also contends), “the most successful many exhibit “an inability to conceive rari, in their most recent books, offer a and most versatile political model hu- of a higher purpose in anything other calculated and compelling assessment mans have so far developed for dealing than religion,” and where “cynicism of how far humanity has come as a with the challenges of the modern about the institutions of moderni- species and where we should look to world” (Harari xviii), Harari then looks ty” (Pinker xv) has become the norm, go in the future. In Enlightenment to the immediate future and asks how will this new story go? Is a new, Now: The Case for Reason, Science, whether the ideals of the Enlighten- captivating, and unified narrative even Humanism, and Progress, Pinker con- ment will be enough to deal with the necessary— or desirable? Harari, for tends that now, more than ever, as the oncoming revolutions in information one, is unequivocal on the matter: “If dominant narrative has become that of technology and biotechnology. He this generation lacks a comprehensive a deepening global crisis and the fail- maintains that in the next few decades view of the cosmos, the future of life ure of modernity, classical liberalism humankind will be confronted with will be decided at random” (Harari needs a forceful and steadfast defense. the most challenging dilemma we 266). Although Pinker and Harari do Using a bewildering amount of data have ever faced. If liberalism wishes to agree on much and more, they also that are neatly broken down into di- survive in a world where infotech and have their points of disagreement. In gestible graphs, Pinker is able to argue biotech collide, it will have to adjust fact, they are somewhat reminiscent of convincingly that not only has the En- and reinvent itself once again. Pestov and Sergey Ivanovich at one of 69 Stiva’s parties in Anna Karenina. “Both tues and values of the Enlightenment. which Harari directly addresses. [are] men respected for their character As Pinker rightly asserts, it is these To Pinker’s charge that universities and their intelligence” but are in masters of suspicion, or as he disparag- have become infested with a pessimistic marked disagreement on several sub- ingly calls them, “prophets of doom,” frame of mind and that there is a dire jects, “not because they belong to oppo- who have become the rock stars of the need to change this outlook to a more site parties, but precisely because they liberal arts curriculum. Where Pinker is optimistic one, Harari offers a simple [are] of the same party,” where “each on weaker footing is in his tacit asser- and straightforward explanation. In the has his own special shade of opinion.” tion that we would all be better off if book’s introduction, while detailing his However, at this party, the task of these men never existed. In one passage reasoning for writing the book in the “jeering without anger” at their (penned with palpable vitriol and bit- manner in which he does (focusing on “incorrigible aberrations” will fall to me. terness), Pinker defends the Enlighten- the shortcomings of modernity and the ment project against charges that it is a In two early chapters titled liberal worldview), Harari states that “I Western creation that refuses to ac- “Counter-Enlightenments” and do so not because I believe liberal de- count for the great diversity of thought “Progressophobia,” Pinker takes aim at mocracy is uniquely problematic but throughout the world and, therefore, is the academic pessimism that has infil- rather because I think it is the most unsuited to deal with all the world’s trated and spread throughout universi- successful and most versatile political problems. While refuting the charges ties—in particular, the Arts and Hu- model humans have so far developed [. that “the Enlightenment is the guiding manities departments. Pinker venom- . .]” and that, moreover, “[w]ithout crit- ideal of the West,” Pinker tellingly re- ously attacks everyone from the Ro- icizing the liberal model, we cannot sponds, “If only!” before going on a two- mantics and Rousseau to Fanon and repair its faults or move beyond chapter tirade against any intellectual Foucault—with a particular rancor re- it” (Harari xviii-xix). Put differently, tradition that does not fall within the served for Nietzsche—and urges us to progress does not happen and has nev- purview of the Enlightenment. This line abandon these thinkers with their em- er happened by praising how great and of thinking is shortsighted and prob- phasis on the shortcomings of moderni- perfect the world is but rather by recog- lematic for several reasons—many of ty in favor of those who extol the vir- nizing and criticizing our flaws in order 70 to improve them. This is an obvious been mostly incompatible and can ple have always voted with their hearts point that Pinker not so much ignores; travel only so far together before they and not their minds. However, what instead, he seems to view as a useful are forced to go their separate ways. Pinker does best in his book tool of a bygone era, yet it is no longer This is not a new discovery but rather (sometimes subtly, other times heavy- applicable to our modern world ruled a dilemma that scholars are aware of handedly) is to remind us that it is the by the self-correcting procedures of and have been wrestling with for hun- very “nature of progress that it erases science and reason. In a quite frankly dreds of years. If you want a powerful its tracks, and its champions fixate on shocking display of presentism, Pinker story, you have to invent fictions; on the remaining injustices and forget praises the “muckraking journalists the flip-side of that, if you want a how far we have come” (Pinker 215). It and novelists like Upton Sin- truthful story at some point, you will is this last profound point of Pinker’s, clair” (Pinker 186) for propelling pro- have to renounce power. When sitting which he underscores throughout, gress during the early 20th century down to write, scholars have to ask that brings me to my final critique. while simultaneously bemoaning the themselves, “Do they serve truth or Throughout his book, Pinker is fact that in recent years works on top- power? Should they aim to unite peo- able to make a compelling case for ics such as genocide, terrorism, can- ple by making sure everyone believes progress in large part because he takes cer, and racism have received major in the same story, or should they let a long-durée view of history. Pinker is literary prizes as works on progress people know the truth even at the correct that if we take a broad view of have been given short-shrift. In a book price of disunity?” (Harari 247) Some history as opposed to a narrow one, about progress, this blatant disregard of the most successful scholars and all what we begin to see is a more pro- for how progress continues to work is of the most powerful narratives gressive and optimistic trajectory of troublesome. throughout history have valued unity history. However, it is equally im- over truth— in part because they un- Moreover, throughout the book, portant to keep in mind that we derstand that humans as a species pre- Pinker showcases a surprising display should never replace wholesale one fer power to truth.