What do you think?
Rate this book
Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives
Shockingly relevant, this hard hitting study shows how dehumanizing language was and is being used to justify violent acts against vulnerable people, including the unborn, African Americans, the elderly, women, and Jews.
- GenresPhilosophy
287 pages, Paperback
First published December 31, 1995
1 person is currently reading
61 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
October 16, 2022
The Perils of Semantic Warfare
Author William Brennan opens the book with the following: “The power of language to color one’s view of reality is profound. In many instances, the most significant factor determining how an object will be perceived is not the nature of the object itself, but the words employed to characterize it. Operating through the lenses of contrasting linguistic symbols, two persons looking at the same phenomenon are likely to come up with sharply divergent observations. Words can also act as a force for justice or a weapon of repression, an instrument of enlightenment or a source of darkness.”
The bulk of the book which follows, unpacks this thesis, detailing how specific targeted groups – the unborn, the weak, the aged, blacks, Native Americans, women, land-owning peasants under Lenin and Stalin, and Jews – have been dehumanized by language, and then treated in an inhuman fashion.
One of the darker revelations that Brennan uncovers is that this sequence of events is frequently not accidental but intentional. In order to justify planned barbaric treatment of a targeted group, those in power first label them with subhuman terms, such as “parasites,” “animals,” pestilence,” or "vegetables." Or the criteria for human personhood are changed such that the target group no longer qualifies – such as substituting functional criteria for a universal human nature. And now, conveniently, the target group – the unborn or the aged – have been defined out of their humanity.
To this end, an editorial in a 1970 medical journal proposed a linguistic strategy of semantic gymnastics – “avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception” and separation of “the idea of abortion from the idea of killing” – as essential for obtaining widespread acceptance of not only abortion, but also euthanasia. (California Medicine, September 1970)
The effectiveness of semantic gymnastics is strengthened by recruiting well-known figures who have the public trust to become mouthpieces for these lies. Carl Sagan and his wife, also a scientist, in 1990 wrote an article comparing the unborn human at different phases of development to a worm, an amphibian, a reptile, a pig, a primate, and finally, a human being. (Parade Magazine, April 22, 1990)
There are two massive problems here. First, even according to evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, this “recapitulation theory” had been completely discredited by the 1920s. And second, Sagan was an astronomer, with no more authority to speak on matters of embryology than pretty much any one of his readers. But as a respected public face for “science,” he was able to get away with it.
Sagan is not likely to be remembered alongside Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda for Nazi Germany, for contributing the deaths of millions by his use of words. But whereas the Nazis’ use of dehumanizing language allowed them to exterminate six million Jews, Sagan’s words, which he must have known were absolutely false but were necessary for “the cause,” contributed to solidifying the momentum of a movement which to date has killed over sixty million American lives.
How many of us have, as children, come home from school crying after having been the victim of a verbal assault from other children, only to be told by a comforting parent that “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Those words ring hollow to the hearer, they don’t address the deep pain that one feels. And I suspect the reason they don’t help is because they aren’t true. Not every word that hurts a child’s feelings is a genuine verbal assault, of course. But, as William Brennan has so painstakingly shown in this book, there is very real connection between dehumanizing language and dehumanizing behaviour, even if it isn’t always actualized.
And so returning to Brennan’s opening statement, it is vital that we consciously employ words that tell the truth about the nature of human beings to which we refer. Words shape public opinion, and public opinion shapes public action.
As individuals we can’t change fallen human nature across the globe. But we can each of us be aware of the ability to use language as a weapon, and make our own efforts to replace dehumanizing language with life-affirming images of our fellow human beings.
Author William Brennan opens the book with the following: “The power of language to color one’s view of reality is profound. In many instances, the most significant factor determining how an object will be perceived is not the nature of the object itself, but the words employed to characterize it. Operating through the lenses of contrasting linguistic symbols, two persons looking at the same phenomenon are likely to come up with sharply divergent observations. Words can also act as a force for justice or a weapon of repression, an instrument of enlightenment or a source of darkness.”
The bulk of the book which follows, unpacks this thesis, detailing how specific targeted groups – the unborn, the weak, the aged, blacks, Native Americans, women, land-owning peasants under Lenin and Stalin, and Jews – have been dehumanized by language, and then treated in an inhuman fashion.
One of the darker revelations that Brennan uncovers is that this sequence of events is frequently not accidental but intentional. In order to justify planned barbaric treatment of a targeted group, those in power first label them with subhuman terms, such as “parasites,” “animals,” pestilence,” or "vegetables." Or the criteria for human personhood are changed such that the target group no longer qualifies – such as substituting functional criteria for a universal human nature. And now, conveniently, the target group – the unborn or the aged – have been defined out of their humanity.
To this end, an editorial in a 1970 medical journal proposed a linguistic strategy of semantic gymnastics – “avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception” and separation of “the idea of abortion from the idea of killing” – as essential for obtaining widespread acceptance of not only abortion, but also euthanasia. (California Medicine, September 1970)
The effectiveness of semantic gymnastics is strengthened by recruiting well-known figures who have the public trust to become mouthpieces for these lies. Carl Sagan and his wife, also a scientist, in 1990 wrote an article comparing the unborn human at different phases of development to a worm, an amphibian, a reptile, a pig, a primate, and finally, a human being. (Parade Magazine, April 22, 1990)
There are two massive problems here. First, even according to evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, this “recapitulation theory” had been completely discredited by the 1920s. And second, Sagan was an astronomer, with no more authority to speak on matters of embryology than pretty much any one of his readers. But as a respected public face for “science,” he was able to get away with it.
Sagan is not likely to be remembered alongside Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda for Nazi Germany, for contributing the deaths of millions by his use of words. But whereas the Nazis’ use of dehumanizing language allowed them to exterminate six million Jews, Sagan’s words, which he must have known were absolutely false but were necessary for “the cause,” contributed to solidifying the momentum of a movement which to date has killed over sixty million American lives.
How many of us have, as children, come home from school crying after having been the victim of a verbal assault from other children, only to be told by a comforting parent that “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Those words ring hollow to the hearer, they don’t address the deep pain that one feels. And I suspect the reason they don’t help is because they aren’t true. Not every word that hurts a child’s feelings is a genuine verbal assault, of course. But, as William Brennan has so painstakingly shown in this book, there is very real connection between dehumanizing language and dehumanizing behaviour, even if it isn’t always actualized.
And so returning to Brennan’s opening statement, it is vital that we consciously employ words that tell the truth about the nature of human beings to which we refer. Words shape public opinion, and public opinion shapes public action.
As individuals we can’t change fallen human nature across the globe. But we can each of us be aware of the ability to use language as a weapon, and make our own efforts to replace dehumanizing language with life-affirming images of our fellow human beings.
October 31, 2017
Dehumanizing the Vulnerable is a great book! I read it when researching dehumanizing language and it was incredibly helpful. In the beginning of the book there is a chart that shows how different groups of people have been dehumanized by the same groups of words. Then, the author walks through the history of each of these marginalized groups and explains how these people were dehumanized by language and how that affected them. I learned a lot and would recommend this to anyone interested in language or in protecting human life!
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews