Book Review of "Humankind: A Hopeful History," by Rutger Bregman, New York & London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021.

by Stephen Wilson

'There is a persistent myth that by their very nature humans are selfish, aggressive and quick to panic. It's what Dutch biologist Frans Del Waal likes to call veneer theory: the notion that civilization is nothing more than the veneer that will crack at the merest provocation. In actuality, the opposite is true. It's when crisis hits - when the bombs fall or the floodwaters rise - that we humans become our best selves.'{page 4, Humankind, Rutger Bregman} declares the author when summoning up his main hypothesis that most humans really reflect and practice the good than are inherently evil.

Unfortunately, most people are convinced that other people have an innate tendency to do evil.  Such a dim, dark and pessimistic view prevails in society. Most journalists, prominent writers in Literature and academics such as psychologists and economists , top managers and politicians have convinced most of us that people are bad and should be deeply distrusted. For example, the father of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud considered that most people were subconscious tyrants or fascists capable of doing evil unless restrained.

The American poet Sylvia Plath in her poem "Daddy" stated "Every woman adores a Fascist". Bregman quotes Professor Postmes who claims most people hold a cynical view of humanity. He contrasts two planets 'A' and 'B' where in event of an air crash, passengers in 'A' will ask and assist other passengers before their own interests and  Planet 'B' where passengers, panic, fend for themselves and trample over children and invalids to get out. 'I would estimate that about 97% of people think that we live on Planet 'B', says Professor Postmes. The truth is, in almost every case , we live on Planet  'A'.

Doesn't matter who you ask. Left wing or right, rich or poor, uneducated, or well read- all make the same error of judgment '{page 3 Humankind, Rutger Bregman}.

Well, have most  people got it all wrong about humanity? Bregman thinks this is the case. In just over 400 pages of polemic he challenges the main canons of a negative view of nature. He questions Hobbes, Machiavelli, Freud, Milton Friedman and psychologists such as Stanley Milgram and Zimbardo to name but a few. He cites a vast amount of sources from Anthropology and History to show how humane and helpful people really are. For instance, in wartime most soldiers don't like to kill the enemy. For example during the Second World War most soldiers and airmen did not kill anyone. Most of the fighting was done by a small minority. We are not born killers. He quotes Colonel Marshall's  claim that only an estimated 15- 25 % fired their weapons in the Pacific and European yards. General Montgomery complained that 'The trouble with our British boys is that they are not killers by nature'. Bregman goes into detail at how German and British soldiers during the First World War observed a truce at Christmas, celebrated together and even played football with each other. Parts of this truce  continued after Christmas with each side warning the enemy of an imminent offensive and deliberately aiming their guns high in order not to kill the enemy. The highest officers were horrified by this. They did all they could to stamp this out. Bregman claims it is so difficult to persuade potential recruits to kill that they have to undergo brutal training which dehumanizes them. This was how soldiers were prepared for the war in Vietnam and Bregman hints that this training and not just the war played a role in so many cases of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. He also argues that to get people to treat others badly in the workplace you have to train them to treat workers with contempt .

If you study classical economics you'll find that they presume an abstract model of a person as innately self-interested who has unlimited wants. He is selfish, competitive and cruel by nature. The danger is that when students study this model it might color their perception of people. How we perceive people and project our views on to other people can inadvertently influence their destiny. If a child is continually called an idiot he or she learns to believe it. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Bregman quotes the 'monster study' of 1936  where psychologists divided orphans into two groups telling one group they would be great communicators and a second group they would become stutterers. The off-shot of this unethical experiment was that half the group became stutterers.

Bregman questions how far empathy is always a good thing. He thinks it has limits and can even be used to discriminate against another group of people deemed the enemy. What is rather needed is active compassion.

Bregman's book is written in a very concise, straightforward and simple way. It is readily accessible to the layman. It is also fascinating because it deals with a lot of important issues such as play, education and what motivates people in the workplace. He also claims that workers and teachers should be left alone to get on with the job. If teachers focus too much on getting children to pass tests then teachers won't have time to teach children how to be kind and honest. The most important aims of education are missed. He claims that administrators, human resource managers and inspectors underestimate and deeply distrust workers. In fact he argues most teachers can do their jobs without being evaluated or constantly inspected. A lot of motivation theories managers learn are not only irrelevant but condescending and patronizing.

Bregman argues that we need a new fresh perspective on humanity which truly respects and acknowledges the good in people. And people who believe that most people are good are not naive and unrealistic. On the contrary, it is the cynics who are unrealistic and out of touch with how people really are .

Bregman warns people that fighting for such an alternative view will meet stiff resistance. 'For every misanthropic argument you deflate, two more will prop up in it's place ... Second to stand up for human goodness is to take a stand against the powers that be. For the powerful, a hopeful view of human nature is downright threatening, subversive, seditious.' [page 19} He also warns standing up for goodness means weathering a storm of ridicule.' This certainly applies to education! How many good American and Russian school teachers have lost their jobs for being too honest,  and frank?

The only reservations I have about this book is where does the professor get the figure of 97% of people believing that most people are not good? What about other surveys suggesting otherwise? I have asked some Russian school students what they think of humanity and most of them think people are basically good.

Another problem is how do you sharply distinguish between a good and bad person? Do we have a special X Ray machine which can reveal the difference? And why has this book received so many good reviews from journalists? Have they suddenly become born again believers in the potential good of humanity?

Bregman blames most journalists for encouraging people to have a dim view of humanity by mainly publishing exceptionally bad events which show humanity at it's worst. Bregman, like the doctor in Bulgakov's novel 'Heart of a Dog', warns people not to read newspapers. If I was Bregman I'd feel embarrassed and awkward about all those good book reviews from journalists.

Having said this, if you need a captivating book then Bregman is your man! It more than deserves a thoughtful read. So read on!