A Critical Review of Humankind
Rutger Bregman’s book Humankind is one of the books that questions negative ideas about human nature and makes readers think. For many years, many people believed that humans are naturally selfish, bad, and only care about themselves. However, Bregman does not agree with this idea. According to him, human nature is not as dark as people think. Instead, people are more willing to help each other, understand others’ feelings, and do good things. In the book, the author supports these ideas with many examples from wars, psychology experiments, history, and biology. One of the best parts of the book is that it gives hope about humanity. Still, when I finished the book, I did not only feel admiration. On one side, I was happy to read it because it made me think differently. On the other side, some of the author’s ideas felt too optimistic to me. Because of this, the book was both interesting and questionable for me.
One of the strongest parts of the book is that it makes people question ideas about human nature that many accept without thinking. Today, we often see violence, murder, wars, and fights on television, social media, and in the news. After some time, people start to believe that the world is full of bad people. At this point, Bregman asks an important question: If humans were really bad by nature, how could societies survive for so many years? A big part of human history was shaped by helping each other, working together, and surviving together. From this side, the writer’s ideas are important and meaningful.
His ideas against the belief that humans are naturally wild are especially interesting. Today, when someone behaves badly, people sometimes say, “Did you grow up in a cave?” However, Bregman says that hunter-gatherer societies were not as violent as many people think. He argues that they sometimes lived more equally and peacefully than settled societies. He believes problems became bigger after ideas like private property, social class, and power became more important. This idea is not completely wrong because history shows that strong rulers or societies often controlled weaker people.
However, this is the point where I started to disagree with the book. Even though Bregman makes many good points, I sometimes felt that he focused too much on examples that support his own ideas. Human history is not only about kindness and helping each other. It is also full of wars, violence, torture, and suffering. If someone wanted, they could also tell human history only as a story of cruelty. Because of this, I think Bregman sometimes only shows one side of the picture.
At this point, the ideas of philosophers become important. For example, Thomas Hobbes had a very negative opinion about human nature and believed that people would create chaos if there were no control. According to him, people need strong rules and authority to keep order. On the other hand, Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that humans are naturally good and that society changes people in bad ways. It is clear that Bregman’s ideas are closer to Rousseau’s thinking. Still, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Humans are not completely bad, but they are not completely good either. People have both good and bad sides inside them.
I also think human behavior cannot be explained only by human nature. There are many things that affect people’s actions. For some people, justice is important. For others, religion, money, politics, love, or power may guide their choices. Because of this, explaining human behavior with only one reason feels incomplete to me. The same person can be kind in one situation and cruel in another. We can see this in daily life too. Nobody wakes up and says, “Today I will hurt someone.” But fear, anger, pressure, or stress during the day can change people’s behavior. This shows that humans have the chance to do both good and bad things.
Another point in the book that made me uncomfortable was the way religion and morality were discussed. Rutger Bregman being atheist is, of course, his personal choice, and I respect that. However, in some parts of the book, he explains moral behavior mostly with the idea of “being watched.” To me, this feels too simple. Saying that people are honest or avoid bad things only because they think an invisible power is watching them does not fully explain spiritual values.
For many people, religion is not only about fear or control. It also teaches kindness, responsibility, and moral values. Saying that people are good only because they think “God is watching them” makes religion seem smaller than it really is. Many people try to be good not because they are afraid of punishment, but because they truly believe it is the right thing to do. Because of this, I think Bregman could have talked about religion in a more balanced way.
One of the parts I disagreed with the most was the section about terrorism. In some parts of the book, Bregman says that people often fight not because of ideas, but because of the groups and friends around them. Of course, belonging to a group can strongly affect human behavior. In difficult situations, people may want to protect their friends or avoid being alone. However, I do not think terrorism can be explained only in this way.
Especially in countries like Türkiye, which have experienced different terrorist attacks, many groups do not act only to protect their friends. Some groups have political ideas or different goals. Sometimes they want to change the system, and sometimes they want to build a different political order in a region. In these situations, violence cannot only be explained by friendship or group belonging. People sometimes use violence because of beliefs, ideas, or political reasons. Because of this, I think Bregman makes this issue look simpler than it really is.
The writer’s criticism of psychology experiments is one of the strongest parts of the book. His discussion of the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments makes readers question ideas that many people believed for years. These experiments were often used to show that humans can become cruel very easily when they follow authority. If this were fully true, it would create a very dark image of human nature. However, Bregman says the truth may be more complicated when we look closely at these experiments. Even so, I think we should be careful about making very clear judgments. Throughout history, normal people also became part of terrible actions because of fear, propaganda, and pressure.
Maybe the strongest feeling this book gave me was hope. Bregman believes that humanity can become better and wants readers to feel the same hope. In today’s world, where we hear bad news every day, this message feels important. The idea that people can trust each other and build fairer systems matters. Still, I think the book gives too little attention to the darker side of people. Humans are not only made of kindness, empathy, and helping each other. Fear, anger, greed, and the wish for power are also part of human nature. In history, the same human race has shown both great kindness and terrible violence.
In conclusion, Humankind became one of the books that made me think deeply and excited me at the same time. After finishing it, I could not decide if I should say, “I am happy I read this book,” or ask, “Is it really possible to be this optimistic?” Rutger Bregman’s hopeful ideas about humanity are important, especially in a world full of negative stories. However, I think the writer sometimes shows people as too innocent. Showing only the good side of human nature is just as incomplete as showing only the bad side. Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle. Humans can do both good and bad things, and which side appears depends on life conditions, beliefs, values, and choices. Because of this, although Bregman’s book is hopeful and interesting, I do not think it explains human nature completely.
27 Gösterim
Yorumlar
Lütfen giriş yapınız.