Humankind: A Hopeful History

Bregman’s claim that he is taking a radical stance by challenging age-old societal beliefs about human nature is somewhat overstated. His thesis does contradict several major ideologies. Indeed, drawing on historical events and empirical evidence, Bregman counters theories that have long posited human beings as inclined toward chaos and selfishness, particularly in crisis situations. However, Bregman himself cites several widely studied philosophers who introduced his thesis beforehand, including Jean-Jacques Rousseau from the 18th century.

However, though the uniqueness of Bregman’s argument is not quite as great as he indicates, Humankind does support a valuable counter-perspective to many mainstream (and more negative) views.

Bregman’s use of historical evidence, while limited in scope in these chapters, offers hopeful counter examples to the narrative that mankind is fundamentally barbaric. Gustave Le Bon grimly speculated that human crowds degenerate into chaos under stress, but through an examination of civilian responses to bombings in World War II, Bregman rebuffs this theory. Whether it’s the British facing the Blitz or the Germans under the rain of Allied munitions, populations during this period displayed not only stoicism but also a certain fortitude, even an improvement in public mental health. Far from validating Le Bon’s hypotheses, wartime behavior indicates the Innate Goodness of Humans, even under duress. In at least this one time of clear crisis, resilience and even humor marked the human response, rather than the expected disintegration of the social fabric.

Chapter 1 posits that students often subscribe to a “Planet B” hypothesis, anticipating that people will behave selfishly during catastrophes. Tom Postmes, a social psychologist, refutes this belief, asserting that altruism and collective responsibility are not anomalies but norms. Bregman cites the sinking of the Titanic and the 9/11 attacks as pivotal moments to scrutinize human nature, highlighting that even during such events, people do not devolve into Hobbesian states of nature. Rather, they exhibit what might be termed “emergency altruism.” Bregman thus ventures into the territory of The Importance and Prevalence of Cooperation. This suggestion undermines the so-called “veneer theory,” the view that civilization is but a thin overlay atop an essentially brutish human essence.

As for where the “veneer theory” stems from, Bregman suggests media and social norms contribute to what he labels the “mean world syndrome,” a mass psychological state induced by relentless exposure to negative news. While media bias might explain why bad news dominates headlines, he argues that such bias doesn’t excuse the distortions it causes in our collective understanding of human behavior. In discussing this phenomenon, Bregman ushers in the theme of The Impact of Societal Structures on Human Behavior. Society’s views of human nature are not solely dictated by inherent traits; the structures around human nature also construct and magnify those views.

Chapter 2 dissects the infamous narrative of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, with Bregman relying heavily again on anecdotal evidence to support his argument. To contest this pessimistic account of human nature, Bregman recounts a real-world anecdote of six Tongan boys stranded on an island, a tale more Robinson Crusoe than Golding. Bregman presents this event as a robust refutation of the “veneer theory.” The Tongan boys, far from devolving into savagery, established a well-functioning micro-society. They took turns at tasks, honored a water rationing system, and even nursed each other back to health; such behavior, Bregman argues, serves as empirical confirmation of The Importance and Prevalence of Cooperation among humans even in extreme circumstances.

Bregman’s key point in this chapter is not only that Golding was incorrect in his dismal perspective, but also that such flawed stories are perpetually being told. Narratives focusing on the darker aspects of human nature, he suggests, engender a skewed view of human capabilities. The recounting of the Tongan boys serves as an example: Had their story been popularized like Golding’s novel, it’s possible that cultural assumptions about the human propensity for mutual aid over mutual destruction might have shifted.

These early chapters, while deploying a strong multi-disciplinary strategy to combat long-standing ideologies, also arguably present a false dichotomy. Through cross-examination of historical events, academic theories, and popular fiction, Bregman argues for a new realism, one shaped by human beings’ natural propensity for goodness and cooperation. Andrew Anthony, in his review of the book in The Guardian, acknowledges the value of that perspective while also emphasizing the complexity of human nature:

There’s a great deal of reassuring human decency […] and a wealth of evidence in support of the contention that the sense of who we are as a species has been deleteriously distorted. But it seems equally misleading to offer the false choice of Rousseau and Hobbes when, clearly, humanity encompasses both. There will always be a battle between our altruistic and selfish instincts, our openness and our protectiveness (Anthony, Andrew. “Humankind: A Hopeful History by Rutger Bregman Review – A Tribute to Our Better Nature.” The Guardian, 12 May 2020).

Bregman implores the reader to rethink entrenched views on human nature, focusing on building a body of evidence to that effect. However, in his effort to debunk the myths that have long plagued society’s understanding of itself, Bregman can lean toward oversimplification.