Steven Pinker: The Blank State

By JOHN GARDNER

There's an old belief in journalism that if you are being attacked from both sides of an argument you must be getting it right. If there is any truth in that proposition then evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker's main tenet, that the innate nature of humanity is a product of our evolutionary history, is looking good.

He has been under fire from some scientific peers, particularly those with their hearts in the political left such as the late Stephen Jay Gould who described Pinker's speciality as "fatuous", "pathetic" and "egregiously simplistic". At the other end of the spectrum Pinker is seen as stripping away abstract concepts of morality and virtue to leave a humanity governed only by its animal nature and essentially driven by its genetic inheritance.

In his latest book he confronts his critics head-on. The primary assault is on what he describes as three myths about human nature, beliefs which he presents as having been undermined by developments in scientific understanding. The blank slate of the book's title is the belief that the mind is entirely a product of environment and the outcome of socialisation.

As he points out, there are now very few purist adherents to this view of the nurture versus nature debate but the idea has a life of its own and still exercises a huge influence on social policies.

He takes on the doctrine of the noble savage - that humans are essentially good and it is only defective social organisation that produces abhorrent behaviour.

Finally he enters the most dangerous minefield to tackle "the ghost in the machine" belief, which is that there is a defining element of humanity that is not purely a construct of a physical brain. Attacking this is, of course, anathema to the religious idea of an immaterial soul but is also deeply unsettling to those who fear that the insistence on a material basis to human nature undermines any morality and opens the way to nihilism.

Pinker is an astonishing synthesiser and the material he assembles to secure his arguments, while rooted in science, is eclectic to a degree, dragging in Dave Barry and, amusingly, given his arch critic Gould's reverence for the pair, Gilbert and Sullivan.

No sacred cow is left ungoaded and almost no element of human behaviour is left unexamined. Gender politics gets a kicking. Postmodernism is treated to a passing slap.

The result is a rich mixture which sounds chords from prehistory to today's headlines. Addressing the argument that if humans are only physical they need have no fear of divine retribution, he points out "they would also not be tempted to massacre thousands of people by the promise of spending eternity in heaven".

In terms of constructing a lean, mean argument Pinker's polymath tendency to go down every avenue and nail home every point with multiple references can be distracting. But the diversions are so entertaining and so illuminating it is difficult to regret them.

This is an intellectual tour de force yet I wonder if it will convert any of the unconvinced. As Lewis Wolpert has pointed out, much of science is counter-intuitive and this applies as much to the study of humanity as to quantum physics.

Like his intellectual ally Richard Dawkins it is enough for Pinker to rejoice in the wonderful complexity of man. But the evidence of our history might suggest that the majority of mankind wants consolation rather than fascination.

Penguin

$39.95

* John Gardner is a Herald journalist.