7 ms·
Steven Pinker talks about this in his book Better Angels of our Nature. Ending the habit of personal eating knives was part of the "civilizing process" that dra
by beat 8y ago
Steven Pinker talks about this in his book Better Angels of our Nature. Ending the habit of personal eating knives was part of the "civilizing process" that drastically reduced the murder rate in Europe, because people stopped walking around armed quite so much.
- tomjakubowski 8y agoSo much for "an armed society is a polite society", I guess.
- x220 8y agoThat premise is true, just not in the way you think. Societies with uncontrollable violence tend to have informal codes of politeness designed to prevent violence and are far more likely to have gangs with honor codes. This does not necessarily make the society less violent, it just means you have more rules to navigate so you don't lose your protection or piss off some powerful person.
- pjc50 8y agoIt was always premised on the idea that implicitly threatening someone with violence is "polite". It also breaks down rapidly when people have had a few drinks.
- x220 8y agoPoliteness is all about rules. A society where people tend to follow complex rules of social interaction is polite, even if it becomes very violent if someone breaks those rules. That's why they are rules in the first place: they are enforced with violence or shame. I don't think I'd be able to find a single large society where people are polite but face no risk of violence or intense social shame when they break the rules.
- tomjakubowski 8y agoInteresting. I suppose I'm guilty of conflating politeness and "civilizedness".
- kurthr 8y agoExactly, it can apparently be perfectly polite to threaten to murder someone (shame if anything was to happen to you...), but not polite to use the wrong fork in your salad. I suppose it depends on what you think is polite. On the other hand, I think it's generally true that social solutions come up to problems that regularly present themselves, but we tend to forget about those formalisms that aren't often used. That doesn't imply the social solutions are particularly fair or globally effective. Imagine a situation where you almost never have to worry about another driver cutting you off in traffic, but you know your chance of being shot in a road rage incidence goes up 5x. Is it worth it and does the implied threat really more polite (eg in an emergency) ?
- rv-de 8y agoI noticed that in cultures where violence is a more accepted form of behavior it is much less likely that someone will bump into me on a busy street. In places like Split (Croatia) or Istanbul there is more natural inclination to grant some space when passing. The most bumps I get in Germany with Munich claiming the first place. I used to joke that the citizens of Munich simply aren't afraid enough of getting stabbed or beaten up and hence use any minor inconvenience as an opportunity to make a statement.
- dmichulke 8y agoI have travelled a few times to Munich and never had anyone bump into me (you're not talking of Oktoberfest, are you?). However, there is one such city for me, it's the only city I ever got bumped into twice in a single day by (seemingly sober) busy pedestrians: Prague
- contingencies 8y agoHaha, come to Asia. You people haven't seen a thing. Not only are there far more people in far less space but personal space norms are drastically reduced, and in some cultures queuing unheard of. Here in China doing anything amongst a group in public is like catching a schoolbus... elbows out, grannies included!
- sasaf5 8y agoAnd elevators: everyone cramps in as if it was the last bus.
- aluren 8y agoWhere in the world are you getting the notion that violence is more accepted in Croatia or Turkey than in Germany?
- travmatt 8y agoAccording to Wikipedia, the per capita homicide rate of turkey is approximately 3.5 times higher than that of germany. Croatia is actually less than that of Germany, although they did fight a very nasty war in the early 90’s and that may have colored some people’s perception of the country.
- EliRivers 8y agoVery polite. Lots of rules on when you can kill someone, and when you MUST kill someone, and what their relatives are then obliged to do to you, and so on.
- sandworm101 8y agoThere have indeed been many codes of behavior stemming from heavily-armed societies. The error is that these societies were not inclusive, their codes designed to prevent killing only among the armed elite. Poor people were not included. (1) Chivalry evolved as a code of behavior between noble European families. It did not protect the man in the field. Some versions of the code even included the "duty" for nights to terrorize the peasantry in order that they respect their lords and continue working the fields. (2) Japan. The modern, early-modern, samurai codes developed during the tokugawa period ... which contrary to legend was actually very peaceful. Basically held prisoner in Edo (see "sankin kotai") the samurai class was bored. Lots of people with swords all sitting around. Some became authors who wrote about being samurai, but many were often just drunk. Rigid codes kept the peace. But samurai were basically free to slaughter commoners. One could argue that rather than reduce violence, such codes succeed only in channeling violence towards the poor, to those without weapons. Arming everyone might seem an answer, but historically removal of the weapons was more effective.
- btilly 8y agoPinker's book has a whole section on how our notions of etiquette were formed as we transitioned from nobles getting ahead by taking from their neighbor to pleasing the kink. So it is definitely true that an armed society can be shockingly rude. However what is absolutely true is that a violent society has very strong notions around honor and respect. You have to when failure to respect others is grounds for getting killed, and failure to get others to respect you leaves you liable to get assaulted yourself. That kind of honor and a high murder rate go hand in hand. Whether we are talking medieval nobles or organized crime today.
- jkw 8y agoAsk HN: Do you think this can be a good analogy for gun control?
- beat 8y agoIn large parts of the world, the idea of "self defense" guns is considered barbaric and absurd. And the high rate of violent crime in the US reflects that relative barbarism. There are places in the world where keeping a full-auto Kalishnikov at home is considered normal. They're much more violent than the US is.
- lettergram 8y agoSwitzerland has a large population with guns (I don’t recall if it’s more or on par with the US). They also are not barbaric by any standard. Guns aren’t really for self defense, so much as self direction. If Trump decided he wanted to make an executive order forcefully sending people to retention centers... you don’t think those guns would come in handy? It’s the last line of defense. This is different than the knives which were literally part of every meal. Most people keep their guns in their home, often locked
- pcardh0 8y agoYou mean like with FDR and the Japanese?
- contingencies 8y agoYes. First point is it's culturally less obtuse because it's a western frame of reference. Second, it's historic fact. More interestingly, they adapted the tools toward peaceful uses making carrying them frowned upon in public. While the same has been considered before for guns, eg. a smart gun which only chambers a round or fires when in a designated recreational shooting zone, time or season, or when pointing in the right direction, etc. ... the reality is that clawing 100s of 1000s of firearms out of the general US public is not going to happen.
- 8y ago
- lookACamel 8y agoYou can see this logic in East Asian cuisine. No knives anywhere on the table, all food must be pre-processed to be graspable using chopsticks or and/or spoons.