He rejects the notion that we have anything like a 'violence instinct.' Rather, we have a kind of 'violence tool,' given to us by natural selection. In his pathbreaking War in Human Civilization(Oxford UP, 2006), he explains in politically palatable and empirically convincing terms just why, evolutionarily speaking, our evolved natures guided the way we have fought over the past 200,000 years. Happily, their successors-principally the practitioners of 'evolutionary psychology'-have both (again, in my opinion). When the first modern challenge was issued-by the Sociobiologists of the 1970s-they had the latter (I would say), but not the former. Given the strength and utility of the 'blank slate' doctrine, anyone hoping to question it successfully must possess considerable political savvy and, more importantly, an overwhelming mass of evidence.

But there are also political reasons to hold to the idea that we have no essence, that everything is 'socially constructed.' Where, for example, would modern liberalism be without this concept? If our natures are fixed in some way, then what should we do to improve our lot? The past, we say, is a foreign country they do things differently there. Historians don't generally like the idea of 'human nature.' We tend to believe that people are intrinsically malleable, that they have no innate 'drives,' 'instincts,' or 'motivations.' The reason we hew to the 'blank slate' notion perhaps has to do with the fact-and it is a fact-that we see remarkable diversity in the historical record.

Azar gat war in human civilization