Rutger Bregman's latest book, Humankind: A hopeful history, is popular at the Auckland library right now.
I requested it months ago, have only just finished reading it in my allotted time, and I have to return it in a few minutes for the next person in the queue.
It's understandable. Bregman's book is a great read, and I highly recommend it.
Last year I read Bregman's other well-known book, Utopia for Realists, and I reviewed it here.
Humankind continues in the same style as Utopia, as a super-easy-to-read yet thought-provoking and occasionally challenging evidence-based approach to modern political issues.
If we could sum up Bregman's thesis in two words, it would be "be kind." He then spends 400 pages explaining why, with reasons from history and science.
But at heart, as I see it, Bregman's book is motivational and inspirational. It's written in a style that creates an optimistic feel in the reader (or at least in me!), that doing the decent thing is okay. Despite the occasional toxicity, despite the cynicism from naysayers, and despite the occasional loss, being kind is the most successful approach to life.
Bregman dives into the human nature debate, coming out on the side of Rousseau et al that human nature is basically good, and that often civilisation corrupts our basic goodness. He argues against the mainstream "cynical" view that humans are naturally selfish and individualistic, and that we need rules and order to minimise conflict.
But the issue is complicated, because human nature is complicated, and Bregman also discusses that.
Bregman argues that, contrary to the cynics, the real "realist" approach to life is to accept the solid evidence that humans are actually pretty decent and kind, for the most part.
Bregman goes through many of the psychological studies on this, such as the prison experiment, the shock machine, and the boys camp. He also discusses William Golding's fictional story, Lord of the Flies (I discuss this here). He points out the flaws in these studies and stories, and why they don't show that human nature is bad. He gives a bit of evolutionary psychology and early-human anthropology.
Bregman then turns to some practical social and political implications for this positive view of human nature.
To sum it up very quickly, Bregman is a minimalist when it comes to management and political oversight. He thinks that in many situations we would do better to have fewer controls and less managerial involvement.
He discusses the prison system, examining the evidence that shows that the "tough" approach simply doesn't work. Stricter policing, harsher penalties, and stricter prisons result in higher economic and social costs for all concerned.
Similarly, he also discusses education, management, healthcare, etc, with plenty of case studies to show that a more hands-off management style works better and more efficiently.
Bregman, as a historian, has done his research on this, and he fills the back section of the book with plenty of references to studies and evidence.
We could quibble about some of the details, but I really don't want to.
This is because I think that the most important thing is creating the right mindset. Bregman's book is about doing just that. If we have a pessimistic outlook on life, and if we distrust those around us, then we create a society that reflects that. But if we have an optimistic outlook on life, and assume the best of people, then we create a society that is better for us all.
(I have to say, one quibble I have is that Bregman assumes that Machiavelli was Machiavellian. It's a shame that Bregman didn't read Erica Benner on this -- I reviewed Benner's book a few months ago.)
Right, time to dash off to the library and return the book!
