What do you think?
Rate this book
Humans: A Monstrous History
Why do humans make monsters, and what do monsters tell us about humanity?
Monsters are central to how we think about the human condition. Join award-winning historian of science Dr. Surekha Davies as she reveals how people have defined the human in relation to everything from apes to zombies, and how they invented race, gender, and nations along the way. With rich, evocative storytelling that braids together ancient gods and generative AI, Frankenstein's monster and ET, A Monstrous History shows how monster-making is about it defines who gets to count as normal.
In an age when corporations increasingly see people as obstacles to profits, this book traces the long, volatile history of monster-making to chart a better path for the future. The result is a profound, effervescent, empowering retelling of the history of the world for anyone who wants to reverse rising inequality and polarization. This is not a history of monsters, but a history through monsters.
Monsters are central to how we think about the human condition. Join award-winning historian of science Dr. Surekha Davies as she reveals how people have defined the human in relation to everything from apes to zombies, and how they invented race, gender, and nations along the way. With rich, evocative storytelling that braids together ancient gods and generative AI, Frankenstein's monster and ET, A Monstrous History shows how monster-making is about it defines who gets to count as normal.
In an age when corporations increasingly see people as obstacles to profits, this book traces the long, volatile history of monster-making to chart a better path for the future. The result is a profound, effervescent, empowering retelling of the history of the world for anyone who wants to reverse rising inequality and polarization. This is not a history of monsters, but a history through monsters.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published February 4, 2025
37 people are currently reading
834 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 - 23 of 23 reviews
December 16, 2024
Sometimes you just know by the end of a book's prologue that, well, this one is just not for me. Such was the case with Surekha Davies Humans: A Monstrous History. This is not to say that the book is badly written. Davies sentences are by all measures correct as far as the English language is concerned. However, I did find myself at the end of quite a few sentences thinking, "You didn't need all those words for that."
The book is essentially about how humans have defined monsters throughout history. These shifting definitions hold a mirror up to what we hold dear and what we consider "other." While Davies will name check numerous monsters we all know and love/fear (e.g. Frankenstein, Dracula, aliens from Men in Black and no that's not typo), her chapters often devolve into these short references. Additionally, it reads like a thesis paper. Davies even points out a term she coined "race-nation" as part of the discussion in multiple chapters.
There are interesting ideas scattered throughout, but they are buried underneath too many unexamined references and a lack of clear direction. That is, until you reach the end where Davies puts a finer point on what the book is about and it has to do with current political hot button items. I think the book would be much stronger if Davies stated her positions more clearly in each chapter. Yes, there are many people who may pass on reading it, but I think it would have made for a more focused narrative.
There is an audience for this book. People interested in more academic writing may enjoy this more than I did. I wouldn't tell anyone not to read it as there is nothing inherently wrong. However, I think you need to really want to dive into the subject the way the author presents it.
(This book was provided as an advance copy by the publisher.)
The book is essentially about how humans have defined monsters throughout history. These shifting definitions hold a mirror up to what we hold dear and what we consider "other." While Davies will name check numerous monsters we all know and love/fear (e.g. Frankenstein, Dracula, aliens from Men in Black and no that's not typo), her chapters often devolve into these short references. Additionally, it reads like a thesis paper. Davies even points out a term she coined "race-nation" as part of the discussion in multiple chapters.
There are interesting ideas scattered throughout, but they are buried underneath too many unexamined references and a lack of clear direction. That is, until you reach the end where Davies puts a finer point on what the book is about and it has to do with current political hot button items. I think the book would be much stronger if Davies stated her positions more clearly in each chapter. Yes, there are many people who may pass on reading it, but I think it would have made for a more focused narrative.
There is an audience for this book. People interested in more academic writing may enjoy this more than I did. I wouldn't tell anyone not to read it as there is nothing inherently wrong. However, I think you need to really want to dive into the subject the way the author presents it.
(This book was provided as an advance copy by the publisher.)
August 19, 2025
Goya got it right. The sleep of reason is usually the villain, but behind the makers of monsters there's always a motive, usually religious or mercantile.
The first third of this book is a good history -- though heavily Eurocentric -- of the way individuals and cultures have "othered" their peers but the further we wander from facts (albeit inevitably distorted by viewpoint) into speculation, the less interesting the material becomes. The chapters on AI and extraterrestrials read like they'd been written for some other book. The style is basically academic but becomes less so as the book progresses. So too do the cited sources, relying largely on pop culture. There are many pages describing Star Trek episodes but -- unless I missed it -- no mention at all of Victor Hugo, who addresses "monstrosity" better than any other Western writer I know. By the end of the book, I felt like I was reading a BLOG screed rather than a serious attempt to wake reason from its very troubled slumber.
The first third of this book is a good history -- though heavily Eurocentric -- of the way individuals and cultures have "othered" their peers but the further we wander from facts (albeit inevitably distorted by viewpoint) into speculation, the less interesting the material becomes. The chapters on AI and extraterrestrials read like they'd been written for some other book. The style is basically academic but becomes less so as the book progresses. So too do the cited sources, relying largely on pop culture. There are many pages describing Star Trek episodes but -- unless I missed it -- no mention at all of Victor Hugo, who addresses "monstrosity" better than any other Western writer I know. By the end of the book, I felt like I was reading a BLOG screed rather than a serious attempt to wake reason from its very troubled slumber.
June 28, 2025
There has never been a monster, but the materialization of fear of unknown, desire to control, and sometimes pure malice and hate. Knowledge and reasoning, which we all possess, should be sufficient to demystify any such claim of monster, but sadly, despite the enlightenment, despite the unbelievable achievements in science and technology, we are still so easily manipulated by narratives of monster. Fear is the best motivator and those in power spare no efforts to create monsters left and right to maintain control of whatever they want.
Understanding monsters is to see through the dominion placed on us by those in power and face our own weakness in judgement. Reading this book is a good start to realize that, just as the cover of the book suggests, monster is a mirror as it reflects who we truly are.
That said, I only give three stars to the book because I find some of the author's discussion cursory. In addition, some examples used are biased (this is quite surprising given that the book is about to not have bias. I include some of the biased examples and claims in the following section) and unnecessary. Finally, I find the writing style challenging (or maybe too academic), which is part of the reason why it took me almost a month to trudge through all the pages.
Interesting quotes and thoughts
--p4
--p15
--p25, one of my complaints about the book is that the author spent too much time on these tangential topics. I can see that pollution is related to human's interaction with the environment, but its usefulness seems very limited in the discussion of native people being treated as monsters due to their ritual of crossing the boundary between humanity and environment. These tangential rambling should be cut out in my opinion, but maybe the author has spent a lot of efforts researching it and they simply didn't want to see the work go wasted. I know that feeling because I tend to do the same in my dissertation.
--p49, a sharp observation that I have never thought about.
--p51, another one of the tangential topics that I don't think deserve to be in the book.
--p59, the rulers create categories to better control the people. To one category, the other category is the monster, and vice versa. The rulers pit the categories against each other so that everyone is busy infighting instead of seeing who the real oppressors are. If the boundaries of the categories are broken by mixed-heritage individuals, the categories cannot be maintained and the rulers' control will be under threat. Hence, there must not be any mixing of heritage.
--p99,
--p107-108, if someone considers a particular group of people as monsters, it is very likely that when they describe "monsters" to family and friends, the words used would be exaggerated, dramatized, if not completely fabricated just to earn some oohs and aahs.
--p118, the context here is that early Christian opinions were more fluid in gender. Some thought "Adam was fully male and female until Eve was removed from him". Other decided that "the original human predated gender and was both and neither male and female." Still others proposed that "the original humans lacked both sex and physical bodies". It was only after Saint Augustine of Hippo in the fourth and fifth centuries proclaiming that gender was binary that only one type of sexual relationship was allowed. Some traditions do be like this, started by some dude hundreds of years ago, and followed without question ever since.
--p147, to me, this is the BEST quote from the book.
--p154, speculation on the reason behind a rule change in sports is always tricky, because even if the speculation is true, there is sufficient wiggle room for denials to muddy the water of an honest debate.
--p156, this is where I disagree with the author and also where the author's own bias (can we call it reversed bias?) is revealed (reference to the incident). If a person , especially a public figure with power and influence, throws a tantrum, we should absolutely call it out, regardless of who they are, let alone the skin of their color. While being Black should never be the reason for discrimination, it should also not shield someone from criticism of poor behaviors.
--p181, the pinnacle of humanity's banality. We have a witch hunt happening right now with the capturing of the so-called "illegal immigrants". ICE even has a quota to hit. But I will stop right here before I turn this into another rant about the collapse of the U.S. democracy.
--p190, if you ask me to pick, this is the common theme throughout the book. Monster is a mirror that reveals who we truly are.
--p200, we are guilty as charged. We love our Rocky!
--p203
--p208, I have doubt about this claim from personal experience. But personal experience can also be biased, so I am not sure whether this claim is true or not. Interestingly, there is no citation to back this claim in the book.
--p224, the context of the translator (what they believe, which era they live, what society norms are) often times is embedded in the translation.
--p236, a good closure to the book.
Understanding monsters is to see through the dominion placed on us by those in power and face our own weakness in judgement. Reading this book is a good start to realize that, just as the cover of the book suggests, monster is a mirror as it reflects who we truly are.
That said, I only give three stars to the book because I find some of the author's discussion cursory. In addition, some examples used are biased (this is quite surprising given that the book is about to not have bias. I include some of the biased examples and claims in the following section) and unnecessary. Finally, I find the writing style challenging (or maybe too academic), which is part of the reason why it took me almost a month to trudge through all the pages.
Interesting quotes and thoughts
Monstrified individuals and groups -- the monsters of the archive -- reveal something about the person or communities doing the naming, not the person or communities they name.
--p4
Travel far enough from the Mediterranean, and instead of regular peoples there would be monstrous ones. Apart from the scales of distance involved, is this so different -- in theory and the form of reasoning -- from hypothesizing that life on a distant planet might be based on silicon rather than carbon? In both cases observers noticed that life and ecology are intertwined.
--p15
Chemicals like PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) affect the brain and the function of the thyroid hormone, which regulars growth -- especially dangerous for children.
--p25, one of my complaints about the book is that the author spent too much time on these tangential topics. I can see that pollution is related to human's interaction with the environment, but its usefulness seems very limited in the discussion of native people being treated as monsters due to their ritual of crossing the boundary between humanity and environment. These tangential rambling should be cut out in my opinion, but maybe the author has spent a lot of efforts researching it and they simply didn't want to see the work go wasted. I know that feeling because I tend to do the same in my dissertation.
Monsters were the drivers of evolution.
--p49, a sharp observation that I have never thought about.
Blood types A, B, AB, O, and their rhesus positive and negative variants occur across populations, albeit with some variation in frequency.
--p51, another one of the tangential topics that I don't think deserve to be in the book.
Perhaps the reason mixed-heritage individuals have often been contained or erased (in administrative terms) is that they make visible how little difference there is between categories.
--p59, the rulers create categories to better control the people. To one category, the other category is the monster, and vice versa. The rulers pit the categories against each other so that everyone is busy infighting instead of seeing who the real oppressors are. If the boundaries of the categories are broken by mixed-heritage individuals, the categories cannot be maintained and the rulers' control will be under threat. Hence, there must not be any mixing of heritage.
By declaring the very existence of mixed-race individuals as illegal, lawmakers effectively define them as monsters -- something beyond regular categories that needs to be suppressed.
--p99,
In other words, how someone felt about a monster would supposedly reveal something fundamental about the monster. This way of thinking opened numerous cans of worms, causing great harm to those whom other people found alarming.
--p107-108, if someone considers a particular group of people as monsters, it is very likely that when they describe "monsters" to family and friends, the words used would be exaggerated, dramatized, if not completely fabricated just to earn some oohs and aahs.
It helped to justify the institution of marriage and the subordination of women to men at the cost of alternative social relations that biblical authorities and early Christians had suggested.
--p118, the context here is that early Christian opinions were more fluid in gender. Some thought "Adam was fully male and female until Eve was removed from him". Other decided that "the original human predated gender and was both and neither male and female." Still others proposed that "the original humans lacked both sex and physical bodies". It was only after Saint Augustine of Hippo in the fourth and fifth centuries proclaiming that gender was binary that only one type of sexual relationship was allowed. Some traditions do be like this, started by some dude hundreds of years ago, and followed without question ever since.
When a story is already fantastic, requiring viewers to suspend disbelief with regard to mermaids, a half-sized species, or interplanetary warp drive, what does it mean that some people find that having a Black person on the screen is what makes a world unbelievable -- or unwatchable?
--p147, to me, this is the BEST quote from the book.
Between 1967 and 1976, the National Basketball Association (NBA) banned players in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and in high school sports from using the slam dunk,... The ban was widely interpreted as a one aimed at curbing the unprecedented scoring power of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar...Others suspected a broader racially motivated reason: Abdul-Jabbar was Black, as were most of the players who used the dunk.
--p154, speculation on the reason behind a rule change in sports is always tricky, because even if the speculation is true, there is sufficient wiggle room for denials to muddy the water of an honest debate.
The scene in the newspaper cartoon shows Williams floating in midair, midjump, hovering over a broken racquet.
--p156, this is where I disagree with the author and also where the author's own bias (can we call it reversed bias?) is revealed (reference to the incident). If a person , especially a public figure with power and influence, throws a tantrum, we should absolutely call it out, regardless of who they are, let alone the skin of their color. While being Black should never be the reason for discrimination, it should also not shield someone from criticism of poor behaviors.
When the accusations cut so deeply and broadly through society, they framed so many people as monstrous that the only way out of the crisis was to decide that, in fact, no one was monstrous
--p181, the pinnacle of humanity's banality. We have a witch hunt happening right now with the capturing of the so-called "illegal immigrants". ICE even has a quota to hit. But I will stop right here before I turn this into another rant about the collapse of the U.S. democracy.
By deciding what robots are for, we are defining what humans are.
--p190, if you ask me to pick, this is the common theme throughout the book. Monster is a mirror that reveals who we truly are.
Despite looking about as alive as a wheel, 80 percent of Roombas have been given names by their owners.
--p200, we are guilty as charged. We love our Rocky!
Humanity is very good at dehumanizing people and at humanizing nonhumans.
--p203
Computer engineers are disproportionately cishet white men,...
--p208, I have doubt about this claim from personal experience. But personal experience can also be biased, so I am not sure whether this claim is true or not. Interestingly, there is no citation to back this claim in the book.
Earlier translators, then, had often cast Grendel's mother as more monstrous than she is in the original Beowulf text.
--p224, the context of the translator (what they believe, which era they live, what society norms are) often times is embedded in the translation.
What might a monster-centered ethics look like? It would take those ways of thinking that create monsters -- that exclude people -- and turn those assumptions on their heads to welcome in the so-called monsters. It would mean understanding that when a person does not fit a system, the system is failing, not the person.
--p236, a good closure to the book.
December 1, 2025
This is an account of how states, societies and institutions engage with alterity across modernity, and how they negotiate the category of the human by what/who is and isn’t included. These discourses of monster-making, and the fantasies of bodily monstrosity they produce, characterise imperial and scientific narratives about race and Indigeneity, and normative ideas about gender, ability and the body. Davies shows where and how ideas about monsters arise, from cartography to descriptions of imperial frontier encounters, and scientific ideas about the human in relation to the animal (and also the putative extraterrestrial). The monster is an effective tool to understand a society’s affective relation to otherness, and this is as much a history of fear and hatred as it is of science and empire.
But Davies’s definition of the monster is almost so expansive as to be meaningless; all processes of marginalisation, through this lens, become processes of monstrification. Which makes some good sense; I definitely agreed that marginalisation is a process through which alterity is produced, and the fantasies of monstrous otherness Davies considers are illuminating in and of themselves. But by wielding this formulation so expansively, she struggles to say anything really very specific about eg. racialisation or gendering. We already have pretty robust terminology for these processes, and I’m not sure what this new term adds. Everything is collapsed into the idea of the monster, and so her analysis felt superficial.
Portions about the Spanish-Mexican frontier and “monstrous” Indigeneity, and an intriguing chapter on how AI technologies (or, at least, fantasies of an artificial intelligence) “monstrify” the human labourer, were really interesting. But they were brighter lights in an otherwise frustratingly miscellaneous narrative: chapters tended to flit between monsters with alarming pace, and I wished Davies would dwell with one or two close readings per chapter rather than fitting in every possible example. The lack of a chronology or through-line (or at least one I could discern) did this a disservice. It was so easy to get lost! And the force of Davies’ argument was diminished by such an expansive periodisation, geography and thematic range.
Which is all to say I think this was a missed opportunity. There’s the spark of something so exciting here, and I’m sad that, for me, this really didn’t work.
But Davies’s definition of the monster is almost so expansive as to be meaningless; all processes of marginalisation, through this lens, become processes of monstrification. Which makes some good sense; I definitely agreed that marginalisation is a process through which alterity is produced, and the fantasies of monstrous otherness Davies considers are illuminating in and of themselves. But by wielding this formulation so expansively, she struggles to say anything really very specific about eg. racialisation or gendering. We already have pretty robust terminology for these processes, and I’m not sure what this new term adds. Everything is collapsed into the idea of the monster, and so her analysis felt superficial.
Portions about the Spanish-Mexican frontier and “monstrous” Indigeneity, and an intriguing chapter on how AI technologies (or, at least, fantasies of an artificial intelligence) “monstrify” the human labourer, were really interesting. But they were brighter lights in an otherwise frustratingly miscellaneous narrative: chapters tended to flit between monsters with alarming pace, and I wished Davies would dwell with one or two close readings per chapter rather than fitting in every possible example. The lack of a chronology or through-line (or at least one I could discern) did this a disservice. It was so easy to get lost! And the force of Davies’ argument was diminished by such an expansive periodisation, geography and thematic range.
Which is all to say I think this was a missed opportunity. There’s the spark of something so exciting here, and I’m sad that, for me, this really didn’t work.
July 1, 2025
it's a fantastic read. plenty of material for avid readers to go through the sources the book quotes and find more books to read, testaments to the complex human history and our legacy of humanizing, and often, sadly, de-humanizing each other.
the book is very accessible and very complete in covering a wide range of topics which share the theme of monster making. as an avid fiction reader and author, I found the context provided on historical settings and what inspired so many people and cultures to regard the other, the entire journey this book lead me on to be very vital.
I feel now better equiped to voice certain positions in the current world which becomes increasingly anti human.
the book is very accessible and very complete in covering a wide range of topics which share the theme of monster making. as an avid fiction reader and author, I found the context provided on historical settings and what inspired so many people and cultures to regard the other, the entire journey this book lead me on to be very vital.
I feel now better equiped to voice certain positions in the current world which becomes increasingly anti human.
July 30, 2025
Very very good
Read
April 12, 2025Book Review: Humans: A Monstrous History by Surekha Davies
In Humans: A Monstrous History, Surekha Davies presents a thought-provoking examination of the ways in which humans have engaged with the concept of monstrosity throughout history. This book intricately weaves together themes from anthropology, history, and cultural studies to explore how perceptions of the “monstrous” have shaped human identity and societal norms. Through an engaging narrative, Davies invites readers to reconsider the boundaries of humanity and the various forms that monstrosity has taken over time.
Content Overview
Davies structures her exploration around key historical moments and cultural contexts that illustrate the evolving understanding of monstrosity. The book begins by tracing the origins of the term “monster,” investigating its Latin roots and subsequent adaptations in various cultures. From early mythological creatures to contemporary representations in media, Davies highlights how definitions of monstrosity have been used to categorize individuals and groups, often serving as tools of exclusion or social control.
One of the central arguments of the book is that monstrosity is not merely a physical characteristic but a complex interplay of social, political, and cultural factors. Davies emphasizes the role of power dynamics in shaping what is considered monstrous, exploring how marginalized groups have historically been labeled as such. This analysis is grounded in a rich array of historical examples, ranging from medieval beliefs in the supernatural to modern discussions around race, gender, and disability.
Thematic Exploration
Several key themes emerge throughout Humans: A Monstrous History:
Cultural Constructs of Monstrosity: Davies effectively argues that monstrosity is a cultural construct rather than an inherent quality. She illustrates how different societies have created their own definitions of what constitutes a monster, often reflecting prevailing fears and anxieties.
Power and Exclusion: The book delves into the use of monstrous labels as a means of exerting power over marginalized populations. By examining the historical context of these labels, Davies highlights how they have been employed to justify discrimination and violence.
Intersections of Identity: Davies discusses the ways in which identities intersect, particularly in relation to monstrosity. Issues of race, gender, and class are explored, revealing how these dimensions complicate the simplistic binaries of human versus monster.
Monstrosity in Contemporary Culture: The latter sections of the book connect historical notions of monstrosity to modern representations in literature, film, and art. Davies analyzes how contemporary narratives continue to grapple with themes of the monstrous, often challenging traditional conceptions.
Ethical Implications: Beyond historical analysis, Davies raises ethical questions regarding how society labels and treats those deemed “monstrous.” She calls for a re-examination of these categories, advocating for a more inclusive understanding of humanity.
Style and Accessibility
Davies’ writing is accessible yet intellectually rigorous, making complex concepts understandable for a wide audience. Her use of engaging anecdotes and rich historical detail draws readers in, while her scholarly approach ensures that the arguments presented are well-supported and thought-provoking. The book is enriched by a variety of illustrations and references that complement the text, enhancing the reader’s experience.
Practical Implications
Humans: A Monstrous History is an invaluable resource for scholars and students interested in anthropology, history, cultural studies, and social theory. It encourages readers to critically reflect on the implications of labeling and identity in contemporary society. The book’s insights are particularly relevant in discussions around discrimination and the politics of identity, making it a significant contribution to contemporary debates about inclusion and diversity.
Conclusion
Surekha Davies’ Humans: A Monstrous History is a compelling exploration of the intricate relationship between humanity and monstrosity throughout history. By unpacking the cultural, social, and political dimensions of monstrosity, Davies challenges readers to reconsider preconceived notions of what it means to be human. This book stands as a significant academic work that not only enriches our understanding of monstrosity but also prompts critical reflection on the ethical implications of labeling and identity in our modern world.
In Humans: A Monstrous History, Surekha Davies presents a thought-provoking examination of the ways in which humans have engaged with the concept of monstrosity throughout history. This book intricately weaves together themes from anthropology, history, and cultural studies to explore how perceptions of the “monstrous” have shaped human identity and societal norms. Through an engaging narrative, Davies invites readers to reconsider the boundaries of humanity and the various forms that monstrosity has taken over time.
Content Overview
Davies structures her exploration around key historical moments and cultural contexts that illustrate the evolving understanding of monstrosity. The book begins by tracing the origins of the term “monster,” investigating its Latin roots and subsequent adaptations in various cultures. From early mythological creatures to contemporary representations in media, Davies highlights how definitions of monstrosity have been used to categorize individuals and groups, often serving as tools of exclusion or social control.
One of the central arguments of the book is that monstrosity is not merely a physical characteristic but a complex interplay of social, political, and cultural factors. Davies emphasizes the role of power dynamics in shaping what is considered monstrous, exploring how marginalized groups have historically been labeled as such. This analysis is grounded in a rich array of historical examples, ranging from medieval beliefs in the supernatural to modern discussions around race, gender, and disability.
Thematic Exploration
Several key themes emerge throughout Humans: A Monstrous History:
Cultural Constructs of Monstrosity: Davies effectively argues that monstrosity is a cultural construct rather than an inherent quality. She illustrates how different societies have created their own definitions of what constitutes a monster, often reflecting prevailing fears and anxieties.
Power and Exclusion: The book delves into the use of monstrous labels as a means of exerting power over marginalized populations. By examining the historical context of these labels, Davies highlights how they have been employed to justify discrimination and violence.
Intersections of Identity: Davies discusses the ways in which identities intersect, particularly in relation to monstrosity. Issues of race, gender, and class are explored, revealing how these dimensions complicate the simplistic binaries of human versus monster.
Monstrosity in Contemporary Culture: The latter sections of the book connect historical notions of monstrosity to modern representations in literature, film, and art. Davies analyzes how contemporary narratives continue to grapple with themes of the monstrous, often challenging traditional conceptions.
Ethical Implications: Beyond historical analysis, Davies raises ethical questions regarding how society labels and treats those deemed “monstrous.” She calls for a re-examination of these categories, advocating for a more inclusive understanding of humanity.
Style and Accessibility
Davies’ writing is accessible yet intellectually rigorous, making complex concepts understandable for a wide audience. Her use of engaging anecdotes and rich historical detail draws readers in, while her scholarly approach ensures that the arguments presented are well-supported and thought-provoking. The book is enriched by a variety of illustrations and references that complement the text, enhancing the reader’s experience.
Practical Implications
Humans: A Monstrous History is an invaluable resource for scholars and students interested in anthropology, history, cultural studies, and social theory. It encourages readers to critically reflect on the implications of labeling and identity in contemporary society. The book’s insights are particularly relevant in discussions around discrimination and the politics of identity, making it a significant contribution to contemporary debates about inclusion and diversity.
Conclusion
Surekha Davies’ Humans: A Monstrous History is a compelling exploration of the intricate relationship between humanity and monstrosity throughout history. By unpacking the cultural, social, and political dimensions of monstrosity, Davies challenges readers to reconsider preconceived notions of what it means to be human. This book stands as a significant academic work that not only enriches our understanding of monstrosity but also prompts critical reflection on the ethical implications of labeling and identity in our modern world.
February 26, 2025
The story of humankind can be told in many ways, but one way to tell it is as the story of how various ingroups define various other outgroups as abnormal, inferior, or otherwise unworthy of basic rights. In other words, the story of humanity is the story of how we make monsters out of each other.
In Humans: A Monstrous History, historian of science Dr. Surekha Davies retells the history of the West from the perspective of, basically, bigotry—exploring how we’ve “monstrified” other human beings and what this says about us (spoiler: nothing pleasant).
“Monster-making,” Surekha writes, “happens when people say that someone or something is weird or does not fit, whatever that means. It’s what happens when people try to organize everyone and everything into neat little boxes.”
As you can imagine, once someone or something is labeled a monster, or not quite human, you can expect truly horrific things to start happening, as attested to by recorded history. Another way to put it is that, essentially, humans are assholes, and have been assholes to each other for a very long time.
Davies makes an interesting observation along the way; namely, that the Western tradition—dominated as it is by the monotheistic faiths—is more susceptible to this “monstrification” than many indigenous cultures who view the human being as embedded in an interconnected natural world.
The monotheistic West, through the hierarchical lens of the “great chain of being”—extending from lowly plants and animals to humans (of various ranks) to angels and ultimately God—can’t help but create outgroups of lesser status somewhere lower on the hierarchy of beings. Instead of an interdependent world of reciprocal obligation, you get a bunch of divinely deluded humans who think they’re above and better than anyone else who looks or thinks differently—all ordained by God.
Unsurprisingly, this creates some problems.
Differences have always meant more to humans than similarities. We invent things like race, nations, religions, and gods to silo ourselves into identities that are always exclusionary, viewing those that fall outside of these imagined identities as less than human, or, as Davies puts it, as monsters. And although Davies does a phenomenal, if a bit disjointed, job of documenting this bigoted history, none of it should really come as a big surprise or major revelation. Again, humans are assholes.
Maybe it doesn’t have to be this way. Throughout the book, Davies raises some interesting questions. For one, many cultures and individuals in our past—though often overlooked or denigrated—have indeed embraced a more inclusive, tolerant, and cooperative attitude. Might humanity one day more fully adopt this indigenous outlook of interdependence?
In fact, there is a more open-minded, pluralistic tradition even in the individualistic West. For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Diogenes, when asked where he came from, replied that he was a “citizen of the world (kosmopolitês).” Socrates agreed, saying, “I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world.” The Stoics would also later embrace a cosmopolitan philosophy that views all humans as part of a single community.
Unfortunately, the subsequent history of the West—as outlined in the book—is more or less a repudiation of this view. The big question is whether we can ever get back to these cosmopolitan ideals.
History tells us to not get our hopes up, because, in fact, we are the monsters. It can only be when we face up to this uncomfortable truth that we can truly try to build something better.
In Humans: A Monstrous History, historian of science Dr. Surekha Davies retells the history of the West from the perspective of, basically, bigotry—exploring how we’ve “monstrified” other human beings and what this says about us (spoiler: nothing pleasant).
“Monster-making,” Surekha writes, “happens when people say that someone or something is weird or does not fit, whatever that means. It’s what happens when people try to organize everyone and everything into neat little boxes.”
As you can imagine, once someone or something is labeled a monster, or not quite human, you can expect truly horrific things to start happening, as attested to by recorded history. Another way to put it is that, essentially, humans are assholes, and have been assholes to each other for a very long time.
Davies makes an interesting observation along the way; namely, that the Western tradition—dominated as it is by the monotheistic faiths—is more susceptible to this “monstrification” than many indigenous cultures who view the human being as embedded in an interconnected natural world.
The monotheistic West, through the hierarchical lens of the “great chain of being”—extending from lowly plants and animals to humans (of various ranks) to angels and ultimately God—can’t help but create outgroups of lesser status somewhere lower on the hierarchy of beings. Instead of an interdependent world of reciprocal obligation, you get a bunch of divinely deluded humans who think they’re above and better than anyone else who looks or thinks differently—all ordained by God.
Unsurprisingly, this creates some problems.
Differences have always meant more to humans than similarities. We invent things like race, nations, religions, and gods to silo ourselves into identities that are always exclusionary, viewing those that fall outside of these imagined identities as less than human, or, as Davies puts it, as monsters. And although Davies does a phenomenal, if a bit disjointed, job of documenting this bigoted history, none of it should really come as a big surprise or major revelation. Again, humans are assholes.
Maybe it doesn’t have to be this way. Throughout the book, Davies raises some interesting questions. For one, many cultures and individuals in our past—though often overlooked or denigrated—have indeed embraced a more inclusive, tolerant, and cooperative attitude. Might humanity one day more fully adopt this indigenous outlook of interdependence?
In fact, there is a more open-minded, pluralistic tradition even in the individualistic West. For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Diogenes, when asked where he came from, replied that he was a “citizen of the world (kosmopolitês).” Socrates agreed, saying, “I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world.” The Stoics would also later embrace a cosmopolitan philosophy that views all humans as part of a single community.
Unfortunately, the subsequent history of the West—as outlined in the book—is more or less a repudiation of this view. The big question is whether we can ever get back to these cosmopolitan ideals.
History tells us to not get our hopes up, because, in fact, we are the monsters. It can only be when we face up to this uncomfortable truth that we can truly try to build something better.
February 21, 2025
First, let me say this is the perfect book for our time. Understanding the history of monster making helps to see it more clearly in its present guises, and to see it as it truly is- a monstrifying of the other, of difference, and a way to shut oneself from having empathy for those who are disempowered by societal norms.
I’ll be honest, I thought this book would be a bit more of an imaginative retelling of human cultural development as told from the POV of various monsters throughout history. Instead this book is more about ‘otherness’- how human cultures (primarily the west) has othered outsiders or those who ware differently embodied (the tall, the short, the pigmented, for example) and labeled them (essentially or actually) as monsters. It’s an important message. The stories in this book will leave you outraged, but then also sadly reflecting on our own personal histories with otherness, and a sober look at the divided culture we have at this time of writing, where rhetoric is once again painting monsters among us.
At times the book is light-hearted and joyful, with fun analogies to Star Trek and Marvel, and a vision for a more utopian society that embraces and enjoys difference rather than demonizing it. I’m still working to identify all the monsters creeping around the edge of the mirror on the books cover.
I’ll be honest, I thought this book would be a bit more of an imaginative retelling of human cultural development as told from the POV of various monsters throughout history. Instead this book is more about ‘otherness’- how human cultures (primarily the west) has othered outsiders or those who ware differently embodied (the tall, the short, the pigmented, for example) and labeled them (essentially or actually) as monsters. It’s an important message. The stories in this book will leave you outraged, but then also sadly reflecting on our own personal histories with otherness, and a sober look at the divided culture we have at this time of writing, where rhetoric is once again painting monsters among us.
At times the book is light-hearted and joyful, with fun analogies to Star Trek and Marvel, and a vision for a more utopian society that embraces and enjoys difference rather than demonizing it. I’m still working to identify all the monsters creeping around the edge of the mirror on the books cover.
June 27, 2025
4.25 ⭐️
it took me a while to get into, mostly because Davies was hitting me with fact after fact after fact after fact . there were alot of academic terms thrown around that I had to stop and define, but it didn't take away from me enjoying myself.
the book is academic but also widely digestible (TO ME). it was fun learning about how creative these religious colonizing figures were about "monstrifying" aka OPPRESSING indigenous tribes and anyone that wasn't a cishet white man. it also made me realize how deeply rooted western oppression is.
finding out aristotle was an opp was crazy too, especially since "progressive" schools regard him highly.
the beauty in the book is the last 50 pages. Dr. Davies' intention of presenting the examples and facts was to root the reader for the next part of the book: weren't we monsters all along? how do we embrace our monstrosity to create a utopia that embraces diversity? what are we to do when robots are able to think, feel, and analyze for themselves? would we monstrify them if they contain an ounce of humanity? are humans so porous that we can then become robots?
also loved the section shouting out afrofuturism!
Davies gave me a lot to think about. with GREAT recommendations of media to consume!
it took me a while to get into, mostly because Davies was hitting me with fact after fact after fact after fact . there were alot of academic terms thrown around that I had to stop and define, but it didn't take away from me enjoying myself.
the book is academic but also widely digestible (TO ME). it was fun learning about how creative these religious colonizing figures were about "monstrifying" aka OPPRESSING indigenous tribes and anyone that wasn't a cishet white man. it also made me realize how deeply rooted western oppression is.
finding out aristotle was an opp was crazy too, especially since "progressive" schools regard him highly.
the beauty in the book is the last 50 pages. Dr. Davies' intention of presenting the examples and facts was to root the reader for the next part of the book: weren't we monsters all along? how do we embrace our monstrosity to create a utopia that embraces diversity? what are we to do when robots are able to think, feel, and analyze for themselves? would we monstrify them if they contain an ounce of humanity? are humans so porous that we can then become robots?
also loved the section shouting out afrofuturism!
Davies gave me a lot to think about. with GREAT recommendations of media to consume!
September 14, 2025
One of those books that makes me think a different way after.
Here’s an interesting tidbit of my own experience that validates her thesis, especially the sections that highlight the “monstrification” of certain groups through the way we discuss them: after reading the book, I went to the Smithsonian Natural History Museum and immediately noticed that there was an “African Voices” exhibit slotted right next to the taxidermied animals. Like Davies said in the book, the fact that this exhibit wasn’t in an art or history museum, but rather in a NATURAL history museum next to literal animals and dinosaur bones implies that African people BELONG there — that African peoples are, in fact, also animals. Instead of “art”, the works are demoted to “rarities” and “artifacts.” You would never see a “Bavarian Voices” exhibit here; they would house it in the National Art Gallery. I never would have noticed something like this before reading the book and I thank the author for allowing me to view the world through a different lens.
Here’s an interesting tidbit of my own experience that validates her thesis, especially the sections that highlight the “monstrification” of certain groups through the way we discuss them: after reading the book, I went to the Smithsonian Natural History Museum and immediately noticed that there was an “African Voices” exhibit slotted right next to the taxidermied animals. Like Davies said in the book, the fact that this exhibit wasn’t in an art or history museum, but rather in a NATURAL history museum next to literal animals and dinosaur bones implies that African people BELONG there — that African peoples are, in fact, also animals. Instead of “art”, the works are demoted to “rarities” and “artifacts.” You would never see a “Bavarian Voices” exhibit here; they would house it in the National Art Gallery. I never would have noticed something like this before reading the book and I thank the author for allowing me to view the world through a different lens.
May 1, 2025
“We are at a hinge point in human history, where we could make choices and laws that turn back the tide of rising inequality and allow all of us to flourish, instead of allowing a few to harvest our minds and the data of our lives. Either we help one another out of this maze of monstrifying mirrors, or we'll be stuck here bashing our fists against our reflections until we melt in a planetary cauldron of our own making.”
also filing this under books I wish I had written, not because it was the most incredible trade history I’ve ever read (it was quite good, just not revolutionary for me) but because it is so Me Core™️ that I’m mad surekha got to it first lol (love her though!!!! surekha davies can I be you). I will say also that for claiming to be a big history it is very specifically about early modern Europe and then modern North America so if you’re looking for something more global monsters this is not that
also filing this under books I wish I had written, not because it was the most incredible trade history I’ve ever read (it was quite good, just not revolutionary for me) but because it is so Me Core™️ that I’m mad surekha got to it first lol (love her though!!!! surekha davies can I be you). I will say also that for claiming to be a big history it is very specifically about early modern Europe and then modern North America so if you’re looking for something more global monsters this is not that
July 28, 2025
A very well-researched book, this is incredibly timely. Sadly, it most likely won't be read by those who most need it: our current crop of politicians and business leaders on both sides of the aisle as well as the very rich, and the privileged. For the rest of us, this is morally compelling, touches lots of bases, and is full of rich historical tales that are often horribly sad. It's also dense, dry, somewhat academic, and states the obvious more often than necessary -- hence the 3 star rating.
June 26, 2025
I really wanted to love this book but I really only liked it. It was extremely well researched, but a lot of the history included I thought was pretty common knowledge. I hadn't previously seen it through the lens presented in the book. What I didn't love was the final chapter which was really political. I understand that othering is very political act, I just felt like it could have ended on a path to unify and move forward without placing blame.
August 13, 2025
In some ways its scope is too wide; in others it perfectly contextualizes our present culture based on the past. I deeply appreciated all the Star Trek and other sci-fi media references that the author artfully included, but minor points off for her and/or the editor mixing up Ash and Bishop in the Alien series.
I got this as an audiobook from the library, but need a text edition that I can highlight and notate. Needless to say, I recommend this book, despite its flaws.
I got this as an audiobook from the library, but need a text edition that I can highlight and notate. Needless to say, I recommend this book, despite its flaws.
December 3, 2025
Some chapters were amusing but derivative, such as those about gods as monsters and robots as monsters but others? Well, the author declares sex to be a social construct. Not just gender, but sex too. They seem to be unaware of science. Then they declare that one can’t actually know what a female is. They also moralize, generalize, and opine while pretending they are speaking fact. I do not recommend unless you are interested in an artifact of peak 2020’s social justice academia.
August 23, 2025
Ranging from the Atlantic slave trade to our fears about AI, this book offers a comprehensive, thoughtful analysis of the monstrification of certain groups and individuals over the course of history. Davies tackles complex and emotionally difficult topics with sensitivity. This was a thoroughly thought-provoking and interesting read!
February 17, 2025
A fascinating exploration of the very human activity of monster-making from antiquity to modernity that manages the accessibility of a trade history while retaining all of the nuance and complexity of an academic text.
August 31, 2025
yes yes yes how people who are different have been monstrified across centuries. So well researched and full of quirky facts and images but the parts on race needed a little more and parts on transgender issues seemed less logical. Great read!
February 28, 2025
I found myself arguing with this almost all the way through that most of what it was describing was othering under another name. Not the book I was hoping for going in.
July 10, 2025
i came for the pop culture references - i love monster movies, etc. - but stayed for the writing into how and why we label people and groups.
November 2, 2025
Too many topics for one book
November 14, 2025
Highly recommend Humans: A Monstrous History. I loved the later chapters on machines, AI, aliens, considering what is a human. Dr Davies uses loads of my favorite science fiction--books, films, TV (lots of Star Trek) to make her points. It's brilliant & clarifies our current AI mess.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews