My thoughts on the recent critique of Pinker’s Enlightenment Now by Gopnik (The Atlantic, April 2018) come in a number of stages. As a sociologist of modernity, I am aghast that psychology and philosophy know so little about modern sociology. It’s completely absent from both Pinker and Gopnik’s analyses even though life in society is clearly a central sociological problem.
Second, I’m sympathetic to the plight of people expected to live in the utterly masculine world of Enlightenment rationality outlined by Pinker. Gopnik does a great job of spelling out the kind of pressing questions any ‘bright young woman’ would ask about life that do not show up in the Enlightenment model.
But third, I am frustrated by the fact that my own professional has so little in print that can show both these non-sociologists where they have gone wrong. Why aren’t we doing a better job of showing the public the real sociology that holds modern life together and makes it attractive?
If Gopnik is right that women are acutely aware that ‘particular connections’ are needed, which surely means ‘love,’ why is she so sure that these can only be supplied by the ‘family, community, place and tradition’ of the past? Sociologists know this as Durkheim’s terrain. He said that solidarity was necessary for both individuals and society, and he felt sure that the only bonds that kept people together were those of the ‘mechanical’ kind found in communities. While this still pops up in odd places, sociologists rightly accept the Enlightenment view that society needs progress. Pinker does a good job of reminding us of what ‘life getting better’ means. One might think this is superfluous except that sociologists have lost sight of society’s progress and need to be reminded that they should be optimistic (Holmes, 2016).
The message that all the parties involved need to get is that modern society supplies great personal relationships and more. Modern people form deep and meaningful bonds in ways that have, inexplicably, not been theorized by previous social sciences. Attraction relationships give people love, caring and excitement. [This paragraph has been edited. Ask me if you want more details.] … People want their celebrity, star quality and excitement as part of growing up and their shared sociology lets young people reshape society. There is collectively progress going on which youth is influential in creating. Any analysis of modern society which omits this sociology has a huge blind spot which makes its analyses obsolete.
How then, can we correct what is missing in the false antithesis between Pinker and Gopnik? First, it is clear that Gopnik’s bright young woman would not want to lose this youthful excitement – which she would if she were forced to stay in a small-town world. She will want the chance to participate in her own generation, make the best possible choices and find the best location for making her own friends, lovers and career. Young people know this activity is crucial. Small towns don’t provide it and young people dream of moving to New York, LA, London and the great cosmopolitan cities where things are happening. Durkheim’s small towns ain’t doing it for modern people. Moreover, parents know this too; they support their children in moving away. They are happy to sacrifice in order to let their children be successful, even when this means being away from their children and grandchildren. Parents understand that this is the only way children will grow up creative and ultimately happy.
Gopnik underestimates people’s connectedness. Facetime and Hangouts, along with air travel, bring families together wherever they live. Parents don’t need traditional community, small towns and neighborhood living to be proud of their children and to enjoy being grandparents. When they want to be, adult children today seem very connected with their parents. In contrast, those who do not want to let their children go or cannot separate from their parents are likely to be considered candidates for counseling. Physical distance works for people because we don’t live in a Durkheimian world; today’s sociology provides people with satisfactions and the infrastructure of communication and travel keeps them close. It is urgent that social science catch up with this. People have long distance relationships and pride in their grandchildren; these are as strong and loving as anything in the past – and possibly purer by being less conflicted.
Modern life isn’t the direct child of the Enlightenment. Our history took us through a romantic revolution that gave us repertoires of attraction relationships and provided sociological arrangements that support these. A modern young woman in a small town does not need to worry that her life won’t have fulfilling relationships; this part of Gopnik’s account doesn’t seem to ring true. Young people expect hard work but they know it will be rewarded with achieved mutual attractions, the excitement of making one’s own way in the world, and the satisfaction of reshaping society along with one’s whole generation. A world confined to small towns and solidaristic communities cannot do this and, in my experience, few people lament the disappearance of the past because modern life offers so much more. Social science could help us all by making clear what is good about modern life and a big part of this challenge surely falls in the lap of sociologists.