"The connections I draw between human nature and political systems in my new book, for example, were prefigured in the debates during the Enlightenment and during the framing of the American Constitution"
About this Quote
Pinker is doing a very specific kind of authority-building here: the move that says, I am not just publishing another contemporary think-piece about politics; I am extending a long argument that serious people have been having since the modern world was invented. By naming the Enlightenment and the Constitutional framing in the same breath, he positions his “connections” between human nature and political systems as both empirical (grounded in a scientist’s model of the mind) and civilizational (continuous with the West’s canonical political origin story).
The intent is partly defensive. Any claim linking “human nature” to institutions can trigger alarms: biological determinism, reductionism, the whiff of turning contingent political choices into inevitabilities. Pinker preempts that by framing his project as “prefigured” in earlier debates rather than asserted as a new law of history. It’s an appeal to lineage: if this conversation animated the Enlightenment and shaped the Constitution, then it’s not a fringe provocation but a foundational problem.
The subtext is also a quiet rebuke to fashionable cynicism about the Enlightenment. Pinker has long defended Enlightenment rationalism against postmodern suspicion and culture-war caricature. Here, he suggests that today’s political dysfunction can be better understood by returning to first principles: incentives, cognitive biases, social cooperation, the fragile engineering of checks and balances. Contextually, it’s classic Pinker: a scientist borrowing the prestige of political philosophy to sell a unifying framework, while reminding the reader that modern democracy was always, at heart, a theory about people as they actually are, not as they should be.
The intent is partly defensive. Any claim linking “human nature” to institutions can trigger alarms: biological determinism, reductionism, the whiff of turning contingent political choices into inevitabilities. Pinker preempts that by framing his project as “prefigured” in earlier debates rather than asserted as a new law of history. It’s an appeal to lineage: if this conversation animated the Enlightenment and shaped the Constitution, then it’s not a fringe provocation but a foundational problem.
The subtext is also a quiet rebuke to fashionable cynicism about the Enlightenment. Pinker has long defended Enlightenment rationalism against postmodern suspicion and culture-war caricature. Here, he suggests that today’s political dysfunction can be better understood by returning to first principles: incentives, cognitive biases, social cooperation, the fragile engineering of checks and balances. Contextually, it’s classic Pinker: a scientist borrowing the prestige of political philosophy to sell a unifying framework, while reminding the reader that modern democracy was always, at heart, a theory about people as they actually are, not as they should be.
Quote Details
| Topic | Reason & Logic |
|---|
More Quotes by Steven
Add to List
