What do you think?
Rate this book
On Inhumanity: Dehumanization and How to Resist It
The Rwandan genocide, the Holocaust, the lynching of African Americans, the colonial slave trade: these are horrific episodes of mass violence spawned from racism and hatred. We like to think that we could never see such evils again--that we would stand up and fight. But something deep in the human psyche--deeper than prejudice itself--leads people to persecute the other: dehumanization, or the human propensity to think of others as less than human.
An award-winning author and philosopher, Smith takes an unflinching look at the mechanisms of the mind that encourage us to see someone as less than human. There is something peculiar and horrifying in human psychology that makes us vulnerable to thinking of whole groups of people as subhuman creatures. When governments or other groups stand to gain by exploiting this innate propensity, and know just how to manipulate words and images to trigger it, there is no limit to the violence and hatred that can result.
Drawing on numerous historical and contemporary cases and recent psychological research, On Inhumanity is the first accessible guide to the phenomenon of dehumanization. Smith walks readers through the psychology of dehumanization, revealing its underlying role in both notorious and lesser-known episodes of violence from history and current events. In particular, he considers the uncomfortable kinship between racism and dehumanization, where beliefs involving race are so often precursors to dehumanization and the horrors that flow from it.
On Inhumanity is bracing and vital reading in a world lurching towards authoritarian political regimes, resurgent white nationalism, refugee crises that breed nativist hostility, and fast-spreading racist rhetoric. The book will open your eyes to the pervasive dangers of dehumanization and the prejudices that can too easily take root within us, and resist them before they spread into the wider world.
An award-winning author and philosopher, Smith takes an unflinching look at the mechanisms of the mind that encourage us to see someone as less than human. There is something peculiar and horrifying in human psychology that makes us vulnerable to thinking of whole groups of people as subhuman creatures. When governments or other groups stand to gain by exploiting this innate propensity, and know just how to manipulate words and images to trigger it, there is no limit to the violence and hatred that can result.
Drawing on numerous historical and contemporary cases and recent psychological research, On Inhumanity is the first accessible guide to the phenomenon of dehumanization. Smith walks readers through the psychology of dehumanization, revealing its underlying role in both notorious and lesser-known episodes of violence from history and current events. In particular, he considers the uncomfortable kinship between racism and dehumanization, where beliefs involving race are so often precursors to dehumanization and the horrors that flow from it.
On Inhumanity is bracing and vital reading in a world lurching towards authoritarian political regimes, resurgent white nationalism, refugee crises that breed nativist hostility, and fast-spreading racist rhetoric. The book will open your eyes to the pervasive dangers of dehumanization and the prejudices that can too easily take root within us, and resist them before they spread into the wider world.
240 pages, Hardcover
Published July 1, 2020
42 people are currently reading
1026 people want to read
About the author
David Livingstone Smith
14 books67 followersDavid Livingstone Smith is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of New England in Biddeford, Maine. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of London, Kings College, where he worked on Freud's philosophy of mind and psychology. His current research is focused on dehumanization, race, propaganda, and related topics. David is the author of seven books and numerous academic papers. His most recent book Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave and Exterminate Others (St. Martin's Press, 2011) was awarded the 2012 Anisfield-Wolf award for nonfiction. He is also editor of How Biology Shapes Philosophy (Cambridge University Press, 2016) , and he is working on a book entitled Making Monsters: The Uncanny Power of Dehumanization, which will be published by Harvard University Press.
David speaks widely in both academic and nonacademic settings, and his work has been featured extensively in national and international media. In 2012 he spoke at the G20 summit on dehumanization and mass violence. David strongly believes that the practice of philosophy has an important role to play helping us meet the challenges confronting humanity in the 21st century and beyond, and that philosophers should work towards making the world a better place.g
David speaks widely in both academic and nonacademic settings, and his work has been featured extensively in national and international media. In 2012 he spoke at the G20 summit on dehumanization and mass violence. David strongly believes that the practice of philosophy has an important role to play helping us meet the challenges confronting humanity in the 21st century and beyond, and that philosophers should work towards making the world a better place.g
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews
November 22, 2020
This is easily my surprise of the year. I picked this book entirely at random, knowing nothing about it, not having a single person recommend it to me, not having seen a single review of it. I was on the Oxford University Press website looking up something about an entirely different book, for some reason decided to click on a list of other recent releases, and saw this on page 2 or page 3. I don't know exactly what I expected. Some vaguely historical treatise about ancient horrors like the Rwandan genocide or the Belgian Congo. Two things I have a passing interest in, having once read thefabulous books We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families and King Leopold's Ghost.
Smith quickly dispels that illusion, making the case that dehumanization is a much more pressing concern both in time and distance. It isn't just something that happened to other people a long time ago. As if I needed any more convincing, the news is full of reports of Australian military forces committing war crimes against (at least) 39 unarmed Afghan civilians. So much for dehumanization only being something that happened "other people" far away.
It is written with a mass audience in mind, rather than academics, and he does an admirable of putting all of his arguments in jargon-free language. What makes Smith's book so effective is that it is relatively brief and to the point while still covering a ton of ground. And it turns out there is actually quite a lot that needs to be explained. How is dehumanization different from racism? If dehumanizers see their targets as subhuman, why do they still rape and torture them? After all, we don't rape and torture deer that eat the flowers in our gardens! Why are dehumanizers so moralistic in their tirades and punishments? We don't get moralistic about a mice infestation of our house.
One of Smith's most compelling sections is when he tries to convince us that, despite the lies we tell ourselves about how good and moral we are, we are much closer to dehumanizers than we pretend. In Smith's telling, a lot of it comes down to the hard-wiring in our brains that none of us can escape. The enlightened, college-educated part of our brains might tell us there's no such thing as the "racial essence" that racists believe in...even as we tell our friends how much we love Italian cuisine and French culture and believe that a cat that doesn't like milk is somehow not being true to its feline essence. It is really hard to avoid essentialistic thinking!
Likewise, the part of our brain the reads Ta-Nahesi Coates articles in The Atlantic tells us that there's no hierarchy of humans. That whites aren't better than yellows aren't better than reds aren't better than blacks. But the part of us that has no problem ordering a steak tells us, that, actually lots of things are intrinsically not worth as much as me.
Smith's fundamental argument is that dehumanizers hold a paradox in their mind. Their victims are simultaneously human and inhuman. They are somewhat like zombies that are neither living nor dead and so somehow worse than either; they become not just physically threatening but metaphysically threatening. He has a fabulous quote from participant in a pogrom in 1993 against Roma.
She can't help but referring to them as people ("it would have been better if we had burnt more of the people") but also as not people ("gypsies are not really people").
One shortcoming of the book is that I didn't feel that Smith gave a fully explanation of why dehumanization gets started. In some cases it is clear: dehumanize blacks because we want to enslave them, appropriate their labor, and get rich. But in many other cases it ends up targeting minority groups that seemingly have no impact on...anything. Take the case of the Rohingya in Myanmar which make up something like 5% of the population and have been there for more than a thousand years.
Is it really just as simple as politicians fabricating an enemy for the political gains of a handful of people? Maybe it is. On the positive side, Smith includes a lengthy and detailed Reading Deeper section where he outlines multiple sources on each of the topics he covers in relative brevity, allowing people like me to try to find answers to exactly those kinds of questions. I wish more books did this!
There is a lesson to be taken from this. Dehumanization is enmeshed with beliefs about race. [...] as long as racism persists, dehumanization is just around the corner.
Smith quickly dispels that illusion, making the case that dehumanization is a much more pressing concern both in time and distance. It isn't just something that happened to other people a long time ago. As if I needed any more convincing, the news is full of reports of Australian military forces committing war crimes against (at least) 39 unarmed Afghan civilians. So much for dehumanization only being something that happened "other people" far away.
Dehumanizers aren’t just pretending. They sincerely believe that those whom they persecute are less than human. And that’s why dehumanization has such immense destructive power.
It is written with a mass audience in mind, rather than academics, and he does an admirable of putting all of his arguments in jargon-free language. What makes Smith's book so effective is that it is relatively brief and to the point while still covering a ton of ground. And it turns out there is actually quite a lot that needs to be explained. How is dehumanization different from racism? If dehumanizers see their targets as subhuman, why do they still rape and torture them? After all, we don't rape and torture deer that eat the flowers in our gardens! Why are dehumanizers so moralistic in their tirades and punishments? We don't get moralistic about a mice infestation of our house.
Racism ends and dehumanization begins at the boundary that separates human beings from the “lower” animals. Racism is the belief that some races consist of lesser human beings, but dehumanization is the belief that members of some races are less than human beings.
One of Smith's most compelling sections is when he tries to convince us that, despite the lies we tell ourselves about how good and moral we are, we are much closer to dehumanizers than we pretend. In Smith's telling, a lot of it comes down to the hard-wiring in our brains that none of us can escape. The enlightened, college-educated part of our brains might tell us there's no such thing as the "racial essence" that racists believe in...even as we tell our friends how much we love Italian cuisine and French culture and believe that a cat that doesn't like milk is somehow not being true to its feline essence. It is really hard to avoid essentialistic thinking!
Likewise, the part of our brain the reads Ta-Nahesi Coates articles in The Atlantic tells us that there's no hierarchy of humans. That whites aren't better than yellows aren't better than reds aren't better than blacks. But the part of us that has no problem ordering a steak tells us, that, actually lots of things are intrinsically not worth as much as me.
And even if we try, we’ve got to struggle against our gut-level intuitions that keep pulling us back the other way. Can you really bring yourself to think that a dandelion plant, or a goldfish, or a parrot, or even a chimpanzee, is of equal value to a human being? I doubt it.
Smith's fundamental argument is that dehumanizers hold a paradox in their mind. Their victims are simultaneously human and inhuman. They are somewhat like zombies that are neither living nor dead and so somehow worse than either; they become not just physically threatening but metaphysically threatening. He has a fabulous quote from participant in a pogrom in 1993 against Roma.
“On reflection, though, it would have been better if we had burnt more of the people, not just the houses” . . . “We did not commit murder—how could you call killing Gypsies murder?” protested Maria. “Gypsies are not really people, you see. They are always killing each other. They are criminals, sub-human, vermin. And they are certainly not wanted here.”
She can't help but referring to them as people ("it would have been better if we had burnt more of the people") but also as not people ("gypsies are not really people").
One shortcoming of the book is that I didn't feel that Smith gave a fully explanation of why dehumanization gets started. In some cases it is clear: dehumanize blacks because we want to enslave them, appropriate their labor, and get rich. But in many other cases it ends up targeting minority groups that seemingly have no impact on...anything. Take the case of the Rohingya in Myanmar which make up something like 5% of the population and have been there for more than a thousand years.
Is it really just as simple as politicians fabricating an enemy for the political gains of a handful of people? Maybe it is. On the positive side, Smith includes a lengthy and detailed Reading Deeper section where he outlines multiple sources on each of the topics he covers in relative brevity, allowing people like me to try to find answers to exactly those kinds of questions. I wish more books did this!
January 1, 2021
A great summary of how people can be dehumanised, how to notice it, reason against it and stop it.
January 18, 2022
David Livingstone Smith shares a philosophical and historical of dehumanization in its many expressions and forms. He draws frequently from writings about the Nazi attempted elimination of the Jews, the Hutu-Tutsi struggle in Rwanda, Black-white relations through history, European degradation of the Roma/Gypsies and President Trump's mischaracterization of refugees at the Southern U.S. border. In great detail written in very readable terms he describes the pattern of language, thought and behavior when dehumanization happens.
One area where he differs from most scholarship on racism is that he contends that because race is a concept that is not biologically based, but rather a social construct, it is not real. As such his view of racism is very limited, not acknowledging that social constructs are "real" in that they significantly impact people's lives, even if they are not biological. There are other points I disagree with his explanation of other concepts such as his brief discussion of sexism, but his remarks on racism are the most troubling.
My other concern is the distant stance he takes toward his topic, never reflecting on his own experience or drawing on other people who have lived with dehumanization. As a result, the book has a sort of distant, even cold quality, even though its topic is profoundly important. He claims to have been studying racism for a long time, so that one would hope that study was not simply from the ivory tower, but also interacted with real life and relationships.
I came away from the book with a broader sense of the span of dehumanization in human life, but still wanting more from a personal and lived experience perspective.
One area where he differs from most scholarship on racism is that he contends that because race is a concept that is not biologically based, but rather a social construct, it is not real. As such his view of racism is very limited, not acknowledging that social constructs are "real" in that they significantly impact people's lives, even if they are not biological. There are other points I disagree with his explanation of other concepts such as his brief discussion of sexism, but his remarks on racism are the most troubling.
My other concern is the distant stance he takes toward his topic, never reflecting on his own experience or drawing on other people who have lived with dehumanization. As a result, the book has a sort of distant, even cold quality, even though its topic is profoundly important. He claims to have been studying racism for a long time, so that one would hope that study was not simply from the ivory tower, but also interacted with real life and relationships.
I came away from the book with a broader sense of the span of dehumanization in human life, but still wanting more from a personal and lived experience perspective.
July 10, 2024
On Inhumanity by David Livingstone Smith ends with a Martin Luther King quote, which to me perfectly encapsulates this sort of liberal approach to combating dehumanization. I think he does a robust job at breaking down dehumanization, and I understand that this book is in all intents and purposes is a constructive one, but some of his insights towards the end are elementary.
I'm curious as to how the Palestinian cause escaped being one of the various examples, historical examples that were used throughout this book.
Two of my favorite chapters from the book are On Contradiction and On Inhumanity.
I'm curious as to how the Palestinian cause escaped being one of the various examples, historical examples that were used throughout this book.
Two of my favorite chapters from the book are On Contradiction and On Inhumanity.
November 11, 2024
Addressing a unique and dangerous aspect of how we treat others to then say “don’t stoop as low as them” or “remember they’re human too” as a form of resistance is on the boggling end. To remind the reader to be informed and call it out when you should is also straight forward and could have been said within 50 pages. I also may have just read other books that give insights this book could have provided to readers that haven’t read the same books as I have and I’m being a pretentious armchair analyst. Could be both ..
January 11, 2021
This book is no less important for the few places it feels incomplete. The book focuses on how as humans we use our tendencies to categorize (and identify things that don't fit what we consider key elements of a category), put things into hierarchies, give ourselves permission to kill things that are "less" than human on the great hierarchy of life, and leverage all of the above (consciously or not) when we see harming some group of people as advantageous to some end to then come to believe there are groups that are subhuman - not animals, not lesser humans, but subhuman - those that LOOK like humans but who are in fact wrong, anomalous, and threatening - meaning they are see as morally deserving of not only exploitation, avoidance, or extermination. It also shows how categorization of individuals as being in their very essence one way or another facilitates this descent into dehumanization.
Places I would have loved to see this book focus more heavily is on the potentially contagious nature of the idea of contamination, taint, or betrayal possible for these groups (that someone of the in group who aligns themselves with the outgroup fundamentally has their spirit or has been infected with those ideas or is a traitor). I think he could have outlined his idea of "race" a bit more completely (or given it a different name to make it more clear) to show that it does not have to be limited to skin color, physical characteristics, ethnicity etc. but that in many ways gender, sexuality, etc. can also fit into these categories and serve as fodder for dehumanization. It was also difficult to buy the idea that one can eliminate racism by avoiding use of the terms race and racism when the author himself was not able to do so.
While possibly true that there is precious little that we can do to help fight off dehumanization, it seemed even at the end that there could have been a stronger call to action as to how we can fight back against it. For instance, it was surprising to see no illustration about how collaborative action against a common goal can help overcome some forms of prejudice. Hopefully there is more to fighting dehumanization than simply understanding it and calling it out in others. While pointing out the political impetus behind dehumanization he didn't seem to spend much time focusing on how potentially undermining the fears, needs that are driving people to want to kill or harm others by solving them through other means might also help undermine the tendency toward dehumanization itself.
Overall an important book to read and to understand, interested to read more on this topic.
Places I would have loved to see this book focus more heavily is on the potentially contagious nature of the idea of contamination, taint, or betrayal possible for these groups (that someone of the in group who aligns themselves with the outgroup fundamentally has their spirit or has been infected with those ideas or is a traitor). I think he could have outlined his idea of "race" a bit more completely (or given it a different name to make it more clear) to show that it does not have to be limited to skin color, physical characteristics, ethnicity etc. but that in many ways gender, sexuality, etc. can also fit into these categories and serve as fodder for dehumanization. It was also difficult to buy the idea that one can eliminate racism by avoiding use of the terms race and racism when the author himself was not able to do so.
While possibly true that there is precious little that we can do to help fight off dehumanization, it seemed even at the end that there could have been a stronger call to action as to how we can fight back against it. For instance, it was surprising to see no illustration about how collaborative action against a common goal can help overcome some forms of prejudice. Hopefully there is more to fighting dehumanization than simply understanding it and calling it out in others. While pointing out the political impetus behind dehumanization he didn't seem to spend much time focusing on how potentially undermining the fears, needs that are driving people to want to kill or harm others by solving them through other means might also help undermine the tendency toward dehumanization itself.
Overall an important book to read and to understand, interested to read more on this topic.
January 9, 2022
“Coalitionary proactive aggression in humans, therefore, is most simply understood as an elaboration of ancient tendencies.”. - Richard W. Wrangham.
David Livingstone Smith is clear when it comes to explaining the psychology of war and violence.
Dehumanization is having two ideas at the same time concerning another group -the group is human, and at the same time it is not; it is a demon, a cockroach or any other hazardous vector-.
Dehumanization is a political and ideological tool, that uses coalitionary proactive aggression in human psychology (please read Richard W. Wrangham's "The Goodness Paradox". Many examples include most known genocides: Stalin's genocide, the Holocaust, the Rwanda genocide, another one in Birmania, Boznia and Herzegovina, and the slave trade business in colonial America and Europe.
Yes, humans can be violent, yes, war is a human invention, and yeah, we are the number one when it comes to killing millions of us due to coalitionary thinking, BUT, dehumanization serves a one purpose: allow one group to target another one and allowing that oppresive group to exterminate the other one. The reasons for extermination could be fear, politics or social darwinism.
So, to sum up:
- Donald Trump is an incendiary asshole (again)
He compared Trump's speech to Goebbels and Hitler's speech. The example is clear, both speeches refer to "the other" as social scum. But, Trump as idiot he may be, was not a genocidal maniac.
His spechees were stupid, but he was right in one thing: you can and have the right to ask for the records of everyone trying to live in your country. I know, its difficult.
- AOC is right. I do not know if im biased, but this person is really, really stupid.
Its hard for me to give this person credit.
- Guarantee free speech.
The same thing that progressives and cancel culture does is the same thing a totalitarian leader does. Free speech, whether you feel offended or not, is the only tool societies have to defend themselves.
David Livingstone Smith is clear when it comes to explaining the psychology of war and violence.
Dehumanization is having two ideas at the same time concerning another group -the group is human, and at the same time it is not; it is a demon, a cockroach or any other hazardous vector-.
Dehumanization is a political and ideological tool, that uses coalitionary proactive aggression in human psychology (please read Richard W. Wrangham's "The Goodness Paradox". Many examples include most known genocides: Stalin's genocide, the Holocaust, the Rwanda genocide, another one in Birmania, Boznia and Herzegovina, and the slave trade business in colonial America and Europe.
Yes, humans can be violent, yes, war is a human invention, and yeah, we are the number one when it comes to killing millions of us due to coalitionary thinking, BUT, dehumanization serves a one purpose: allow one group to target another one and allowing that oppresive group to exterminate the other one. The reasons for extermination could be fear, politics or social darwinism.
So, to sum up:
- Donald Trump is an incendiary asshole (again)
He compared Trump's speech to Goebbels and Hitler's speech. The example is clear, both speeches refer to "the other" as social scum. But, Trump as idiot he may be, was not a genocidal maniac.
His spechees were stupid, but he was right in one thing: you can and have the right to ask for the records of everyone trying to live in your country. I know, its difficult.
- AOC is right. I do not know if im biased, but this person is really, really stupid.
Its hard for me to give this person credit.
- Guarantee free speech.
The same thing that progressives and cancel culture does is the same thing a totalitarian leader does. Free speech, whether you feel offended or not, is the only tool societies have to defend themselves.
January 12, 2021
التجريد من الإنسانية
يقول البروفيسور في علم النفس (David Smith) في كتابه (On Inhumanity) :
إبحث في غوغل عن كلمة "التجريد من الإنسانية" وستحصل على أكثر من 8 مليون نتيجة . ستجد أيضا أن العديد من هذه المصطلحات تحدد صراحةً أو ضمنيًا المصطلح ، وستكتشف أيضًا أن العديد من هذه التعريفات تتعارض مع بعضها . يقول البعض أن تجريد الآخرين من إنسانيتهم هو نفس معاملتهم بطريقة قاسية أو مهينة . يقول آخرون أن اللاإنسانية هي نوع من الكلام المهين - استخدام الافتراءات لتشويه سمعة مجموعات من الناس . يعتقد البعض الآخر أن اللاإنسانية تعني التفكير في الآخرين على أنهم أقل شأناً أو ليسوا بشرًا بالكامل ، أو أشياء غير حية . بالطبع ، هناك صلة بين كل هذه المعاني ، لكنها فضفاضة للغاية. كلها تتعلق بشيء خاطئ أو مهين ، ولكن هذا هو المكان الذي ينتهي فيه التشابه إلى حد كبير. كل من مفاهيم اللاإنسانية هذه مستقلة منطقياً عن الأخرى ، مما يعني أنها لا تتداخل. خذ الفكرة الأولى عن اللاإنسانية التي ذكرتها: الفكرة القائلة بأن تجريد الإنسان من إنسانيته هو معاملته عمداً بطرق قاسية أو مهينة . الآن ، قارن هذا مع آخر واحد في قائمتي: فكرة أنه عندما نجرد الآخرين من إنسانيتهم فإننا نتصورهم كأشياء لا حياة فيها. من السهل أن نرى أن هذه أفكار مختلفة تمامًا. يصف الأول طريقة لمعاملة الناس ، بينما يصف الثاني طريقة للتفكير فيهم. ولاحظ أن فكرة أن تكون قاسيًا على شيء جامد لا معنى له. إن معاملة شخص آخر بقسوة - على سبيل المثال : عن طريق تعذيبهم - هو التسبب عمداً في معاناتهم. لكن الأشياء الجامدة ليس لها مشاعر ولا يمكن أن تتألم. لا يمكنك تعذيب الغسالة. وبالمثل ، لا يمكنك إذلال كائن إلا إذا كان قادرًا على احترام الذات. لكن الأشياء الجامدة ليست قادرة على احترام الذات. لا يمكنك إذلال وعاء الزهور. لذا ، فإن التفكير في الآخرين ككائنات جامدة يستبعد معاملتهم عمداً بطرق قاسية أو مهينة.
هذا مجرد مثال واحد على الفجوات الكبيرة الموجودة بين المفاهيم المختلفة لنزع الإنسانية ، والتي يمكن أن تجعل المناقشات مربكة للغاية. إذا كنت أعني شيئًا واحدًا من خلال "التجريد من الإنسانية" وكنت تقصد شيئًا آخر بالكلمة ، فمن غير المحتمل أن نجري محادثة مثمرة. لأن التعامل مع اللاإنسانية مهم للغاية ، لا ينبغي التسامح مع هذا الموقف . إن المناقشات حول العديد من الموضوعات الفلسفية التقليدية - على سبيل المثال ، طبيعة الحقيقة ، أو الجمال ، أو مسألة ما إذا كان هناك عالم موضوعي خارج أذهاننا - ليست ذات أهمية تذكر لحياة البشر. إن محاولة تحقيق الوضوح بشأن هذه المواضيع هي ممارسة فكرية رائعة ، لكنها بالتأكيد لعبة منخفضة المخاطر. على النقيض من ذلك ، من المحتمل أن تكون عواقب الارتباك حول التجريد من الإنسانية أكثر خطورة وتدميرية. نحن لا نلعب ألعاب الكلمات هنا فقط أو نحل الألغاز الفكرية عندما نحاول أن نفهم اللاإنسانية. التعامل معها بجدية هو التزام أكثر من خيار. أي شخص يهدف إلى معالجة ظاهرة اللاإنسانية يحتاج بجدية إلى القيام بشيئين منذ البداية. أولاً : يجب أن يكونوا صريحين بشأن ما يقصدونه بـ "التجريد من الإنسانية". يجب ألا يكون غامضًا أو معتمداً على افتراض أن الجميع يفهم ما يتم الحديث عنه. يجب أن يضعوها على الخط بوضوح ودقة قدر الإمكان. وثانيًا : يجب أن يبرروا سبب تفضيل فكرة التجريد من الإنسانية عن الخيارات الأخرى الموجودة على الطاولة
أرى التجريد من الإنسانية نوعًا من المواقف - طريقة للتفكير في الآخرين. إن تجريد شخص آخر من إنسانيته يعني اعتباره مخلوقًا غير إنساني .
غالبًا ما يخطئ الناس بين التجريد من الإنسانية و بين آثارها على السلوك البشري. هذا الأمر يجعل من الصعب فهم كيفية عمل اللاإنسانية. عندما يفكر الناس في الآخرين على أنهم دون البشر ، فإنهم يعاملونهم غالبًا بطرق قاسية ومهينة ، وكثيرًا ما يشيرون إليهم باستخدام الافتراءات. لكن المعاملة السيئة والافتراءات المهينة هي أعراض التجريد من الإنسانية و ليست عملية التجريد نفسها . إنها ، إذا جاز التعبير ، أعراض المرض ، وليست المرض نفسه. ولا يمكنك علاج المرض بمجرد الاهتمام بأعراضه. عليك معالجة العمليات الأعمق والأقل وضوحًا التي تدفعها.
وينطبق الشيء نفسه على العلاقة بين اللاإنسانية والافتراءات الحيوانية أو المعاملة القاسية والمهينة. غالبًا ما تكون هذه بسبب المواقف اللاإنسانية ، ويمكننا استخدامها "لتشخيص" اللاإنسانية ، لكنها ليست مؤشرات مضمونة. يمكن للناس التفكير في الآخرين على أنهم أقل من البشر دون أن يعاملوا الآخرين بشكل سيء أو يصفونهم بالحيوانات (يمكن أن تكون اللاإنسانية خفية جدًا ، أو حتى "بدون أعراض") ، وعلى العكس ، يمكن للناس أيضًا التعامل مع الآخرين بطرق قاسية ومهينة أو تسميهم حيوانات دون التفكير حقاً في أنهم حيوانات دون البشر. ولكن هنا ، كما هو الحال بالنسبة للمرض الجسدي ، فإن الأعراض هي مؤشرات موثوقة إلى حد ما على أن العملية النفسية لنزع إنسانية موجودة فعلا ، لذلك فهي مهمة لإجراء التشخيص.
#Maher_Razouk ترجمة
#ماهررزوق
يقول البروفيسور في علم النفس (David Smith) في كتابه (On Inhumanity) :
إبحث في غوغل عن كلمة "التجريد من الإنسانية" وستحصل على أكثر من 8 مليون نتيجة . ستجد أيضا أن العديد من هذه المصطلحات تحدد صراحةً أو ضمنيًا المصطلح ، وستكتشف أيضًا أن العديد من هذه التعريفات تتعارض مع بعضها . يقول البعض أن تجريد الآخرين من إنسانيتهم هو نفس معاملتهم بطريقة قاسية أو مهينة . يقول آخرون أن اللاإنسانية هي نوع من الكلام المهين - استخدام الافتراءات لتشويه سمعة مجموعات من الناس . يعتقد البعض الآخر أن اللاإنسانية تعني التفكير في الآخرين على أنهم أقل شأناً أو ليسوا بشرًا بالكامل ، أو أشياء غير حية . بالطبع ، هناك صلة بين كل هذه المعاني ، لكنها فضفاضة للغاية. كلها تتعلق بشيء خاطئ أو مهين ، ولكن هذا هو المكان الذي ينتهي فيه التشابه إلى حد كبير. كل من مفاهيم اللاإنسانية هذه مستقلة منطقياً عن الأخرى ، مما يعني أنها لا تتداخل. خذ الفكرة الأولى عن اللاإنسانية التي ذكرتها: الفكرة القائلة بأن تجريد الإنسان من إنسانيته هو معاملته عمداً بطرق قاسية أو مهينة . الآن ، قارن هذا مع آخر واحد في قائمتي: فكرة أنه عندما نجرد الآخرين من إنسانيتهم فإننا نتصورهم كأشياء لا حياة فيها. من السهل أن نرى أن هذه أفكار مختلفة تمامًا. يصف الأول طريقة لمعاملة الناس ، بينما يصف الثاني طريقة للتفكير فيهم. ولاحظ أن فكرة أن تكون قاسيًا على شيء جامد لا معنى له. إن معاملة شخص آخر بقسوة - على سبيل المثال : عن طريق تعذيبهم - هو التسبب عمداً في معاناتهم. لكن الأشياء الجامدة ليس لها مشاعر ولا يمكن أن تتألم. لا يمكنك تعذيب الغسالة. وبالمثل ، لا يمكنك إذلال كائن إلا إذا كان قادرًا على احترام الذات. لكن الأشياء الجامدة ليست قادرة على احترام الذات. لا يمكنك إذلال وعاء الزهور. لذا ، فإن التفكير في الآخرين ككائنات جامدة يستبعد معاملتهم عمداً بطرق قاسية أو مهينة.
هذا مجرد مثال واحد على الفجوات الكبيرة الموجودة بين المفاهيم المختلفة لنزع الإنسانية ، والتي يمكن أن تجعل المناقشات مربكة للغاية. إذا كنت أعني شيئًا واحدًا من خلال "التجريد من الإنسانية" وكنت تقصد شيئًا آخر بالكلمة ، فمن غير المحتمل أن نجري محادثة مثمرة. لأن التعامل مع اللاإنسانية مهم للغاية ، لا ينبغي التسامح مع هذا الموقف . إن المناقشات حول العديد من الموضوعات الفلسفية التقليدية - على سبيل المثال ، طبيعة الحقيقة ، أو الجمال ، أو مسألة ما إذا كان هناك عالم موضوعي خارج أذهاننا - ليست ذات أهمية تذكر لحياة البشر. إن محاولة تحقيق الوضوح بشأن هذه المواضيع هي ممارسة فكرية رائعة ، لكنها بالتأكيد لعبة منخفضة المخاطر. على النقيض من ذلك ، من المحتمل أن تكون عواقب الارتباك حول التجريد من الإنسانية أكثر خطورة وتدميرية. نحن لا نلعب ألعاب الكلمات هنا فقط أو نحل الألغاز الفكرية عندما نحاول أن نفهم اللاإنسانية. التعامل معها بجدية هو التزام أكثر من خيار. أي شخص يهدف إلى معالجة ظاهرة اللاإنسانية يحتاج بجدية إلى القيام بشيئين منذ البداية. أولاً : يجب أن يكونوا صريحين بشأن ما يقصدونه بـ "التجريد من الإنسانية". يجب ألا يكون غامضًا أو معتمداً على افتراض أن الجميع يفهم ما يتم الحديث عنه. يجب أن يضعوها على الخط بوضوح ودقة قدر الإمكان. وثانيًا : يجب أن يبرروا سبب تفضيل فكرة التجريد من الإنسانية عن الخيارات الأخرى الموجودة على الطاولة
أرى التجريد من الإنسانية نوعًا من المواقف - طريقة للتفكير في الآخرين. إن تجريد شخص آخر من إنسانيته يعني اعتباره مخلوقًا غير إنساني .
غالبًا ما يخطئ الناس بين التجريد من الإنسانية و بين آثارها على السلوك البشري. هذا الأمر يجعل من الصعب فهم كيفية عمل اللاإنسانية. عندما يفكر الناس في الآخرين على أنهم دون البشر ، فإنهم يعاملونهم غالبًا بطرق قاسية ومهينة ، وكثيرًا ما يشيرون إليهم باستخدام الافتراءات. لكن المعاملة السيئة والافتراءات المهينة هي أعراض التجريد من الإنسانية و ليست عملية التجريد نفسها . إنها ، إذا جاز التعبير ، أعراض المرض ، وليست المرض نفسه. ولا يمكنك علاج المرض بمجرد الاهتمام بأعراضه. عليك معالجة العمليات الأعمق والأقل وضوحًا التي تدفعها.
وينطبق الشيء نفسه على العلاقة بين اللاإنسانية والافتراءات الحيوانية أو المعاملة القاسية والمهينة. غالبًا ما تكون هذه بسبب المواقف اللاإنسانية ، ويمكننا استخدامها "لتشخيص" اللاإنسانية ، لكنها ليست مؤشرات مضمونة. يمكن للناس التفكير في الآخرين على أنهم أقل من البشر دون أن يعاملوا الآخرين بشكل سيء أو يصفونهم بالحيوانات (يمكن أن تكون اللاإنسانية خفية جدًا ، أو حتى "بدون أعراض") ، وعلى العكس ، يمكن للناس أيضًا التعامل مع الآخرين بطرق قاسية ومهينة أو تسميهم حيوانات دون التفكير حقاً في أنهم حيوانات دون البشر. ولكن هنا ، كما هو الحال بالنسبة للمرض الجسدي ، فإن الأعراض هي مؤشرات موثوقة إلى حد ما على أن العملية النفسية لنزع إنسانية موجودة فعلا ، لذلك فهي مهمة لإجراء التشخيص.
#Maher_Razouk ترجمة
#ماهررزوق
June 16, 2024
This book was a pretty good entry-level into the topic of dehumanization. Giving it 4.5 stars, as I wished he went into more detail on some of the chapters. I understand this book was supposed to be a high-level overview and definition of dehumanization and I think it fulfilled that, I just wish he went into a little more detail it. Also I thought it was weird he didn’t mention Palestine at all.
June 16, 2022
A must read
September 12, 2020
I believe I have the gist of David L. Smith's argument in "On Inhumanity" and the political-psychological tendencies that lead to dehumanization of peoples. It is well written, but compressed -- there are chapters I will re-read to be sure I have a solid understanding of what he's writing. That said, I believe this is an important book for our time and a valuable contribution toward social justice attitudes and actions. We must understand the complex workings of dehumanization and racial thinking, and know that we are ourselves are susceptible and have to be on guard against them. I highly recommend this book to anyone who's willing to be even better than they are today.
October 11, 2025
My feelings about this book are mixed.
One thing he mentioned midway through and left hanging was quite baffling to me.
He first mentioned the reality that humans cannot live without killing other life forms. Even if a vegan, still, plant life must die for a human to live.
He then mentions how culture has divided lower and higher forms of life. We tend to consider it okay to pluck and eat a dandelion or kill a cockroach, since they are lower forms of life, but dismembering our baby would be another matter.
It would seem he is a philosophical naturalist, and he thus asserts there is absolutely no such thing as higher and lower forms of life. Literally nothing distinguishes humans from any other life; the baby has no more value than the roach, and to consider a person has a higher form of life than the spinach in the garden is a dangerous illusion.
He wrote as if the idea of saying some life has more value than other life is at the heart of dehumanization.
Uhh... okay... but then to move on!?
The obvious implications of his chain of thought are quite ironic.
As humans are driven to live, they will kill. In light of this fact, how can Smith think he is helping anything, by saying the baby has absolutely no more worth than the ant, termite, or mosquito that we kill without a second thought? Not only that, but he implies that a human being has no more value than the carrot that we peel, cut up, and toss in the boiling water.
Well, gee... if that is the case, why not just peel and chop up David Livingstone Smith and toss him in a pot? He literally said there is no difference--literally nothing that distinguishes him from the slime mold and the maggots, the cauliflower and the Brussel sprouts.
And this, in a book on dehumanization?
That is truly a bizarre point for him to just leave hanging, when it has dehumanizing implications.
I get how the idea of hierarchies of value can be problematic--leading to things like the Caste system in India. But you cannot just do away with the distinctions. We cannot live if we consider the plants, insects, and pests as having equal value as humans, and it will not be pretty if we consider humans as being of no more worth than tapeworms and sand burs.
It seems the biblical idea that all humanity is made in God's image and has equal value is an important start. It seems that distinguishing conscious life from unconscious life is the next step. The author rejects this and yet provides nothing in its place.
My next quibble was that while I do appreciate that Smith does not continually overgeneralize and characterize all white people are irredeemably racist, privileged and evil, and he does not directly say that bad people are always and only white, and he doesn't constantly use the word "white" as a pejorative, like other woke white progressives do; still several examples of dehumanizers are striaght white and able males who brutally torture, dismember, and burn people of color. If a book primarily included examples of black people who dehumanized and tortured white folk, Smith would definitely flag this as racist and an attempt to dehumanize black folk.
Anyhow, I still appreciate that he does encourage people not to dehumanize the dehumanizers. Smith's woke contemporaries will be angry to read this (I have found one such review that wasn't pleased). For woke Progressives, the only way to fight dehumanization and racism (which is done by white males) is to dehumanize white males and suggest they are all inherently racist. Not to dehumanize white males would surely be to give MEGA a free pass. And gasp... how could Smith not have attempted to dehumanize Zionists? I saw another reviewer who was unhappy with this. How could he not have included example after example of people from Israel dehumanizing Palastinians, as grounds to say Israel has no right to exist and to proclaim "from the river to the sea!"
One thing he mentioned midway through and left hanging was quite baffling to me.
He first mentioned the reality that humans cannot live without killing other life forms. Even if a vegan, still, plant life must die for a human to live.
He then mentions how culture has divided lower and higher forms of life. We tend to consider it okay to pluck and eat a dandelion or kill a cockroach, since they are lower forms of life, but dismembering our baby would be another matter.
It would seem he is a philosophical naturalist, and he thus asserts there is absolutely no such thing as higher and lower forms of life. Literally nothing distinguishes humans from any other life; the baby has no more value than the roach, and to consider a person has a higher form of life than the spinach in the garden is a dangerous illusion.
He wrote as if the idea of saying some life has more value than other life is at the heart of dehumanization.
Uhh... okay... but then to move on!?
The obvious implications of his chain of thought are quite ironic.
As humans are driven to live, they will kill. In light of this fact, how can Smith think he is helping anything, by saying the baby has absolutely no more worth than the ant, termite, or mosquito that we kill without a second thought? Not only that, but he implies that a human being has no more value than the carrot that we peel, cut up, and toss in the boiling water.
Well, gee... if that is the case, why not just peel and chop up David Livingstone Smith and toss him in a pot? He literally said there is no difference--literally nothing that distinguishes him from the slime mold and the maggots, the cauliflower and the Brussel sprouts.
And this, in a book on dehumanization?
That is truly a bizarre point for him to just leave hanging, when it has dehumanizing implications.
I get how the idea of hierarchies of value can be problematic--leading to things like the Caste system in India. But you cannot just do away with the distinctions. We cannot live if we consider the plants, insects, and pests as having equal value as humans, and it will not be pretty if we consider humans as being of no more worth than tapeworms and sand burs.
It seems the biblical idea that all humanity is made in God's image and has equal value is an important start. It seems that distinguishing conscious life from unconscious life is the next step. The author rejects this and yet provides nothing in its place.
My next quibble was that while I do appreciate that Smith does not continually overgeneralize and characterize all white people are irredeemably racist, privileged and evil, and he does not directly say that bad people are always and only white, and he doesn't constantly use the word "white" as a pejorative, like other woke white progressives do; still several examples of dehumanizers are striaght white and able males who brutally torture, dismember, and burn people of color. If a book primarily included examples of black people who dehumanized and tortured white folk, Smith would definitely flag this as racist and an attempt to dehumanize black folk.
Anyhow, I still appreciate that he does encourage people not to dehumanize the dehumanizers. Smith's woke contemporaries will be angry to read this (I have found one such review that wasn't pleased). For woke Progressives, the only way to fight dehumanization and racism (which is done by white males) is to dehumanize white males and suggest they are all inherently racist. Not to dehumanize white males would surely be to give MEGA a free pass. And gasp... how could Smith not have attempted to dehumanize Zionists? I saw another reviewer who was unhappy with this. How could he not have included example after example of people from Israel dehumanizing Palastinians, as grounds to say Israel has no right to exist and to proclaim "from the river to the sea!"
September 23, 2025
“Coalitionary proactive aggression in humans, therefore, is most simply understood as an elaboration of ancient tendencies.”. - Richard W. Wrangham.
David Livingstone Smith is clear when it comes to explaining the psychology of war and violence.
Dehumanization is having two ideas at the same time concerning another group -the group is human, and at the same time it is not; it is a demon, a cockroach or any other hazardous vector-.
Dehumanization is a political and ideological tool, that uses coalitionary proactive aggression in human psychology (please read Richard W. Wrangham's "The Goodness Paradox". Many examples include most known genocides: Stalin's genocide, the Holocaust, the Rwanda genocide, another one in Birmania, Boznia and Herzegovina, and the slave trade business in colonial America and Europe.
Yes, humans can be violent, yes, war is a human invention, and yeah, we are the number one when it comes to killing millions of us due to coalitionary thinking, BUT, dehumanization serves a one purpose: allow one group to target another one and allowing that oppresive group to exterminate the other one. The reasons for extermination could be fear, politics or social darwinism.
So, to sum up:
- Donald Trump is an incendiary asshole (again)
He compared Trump's speech to Goebbels and Hitler's speech. The example is clear, both speeches refer to "the other" as social scum. But, Trump as idiot he may be, was not a genocidal maniac.
His spechees were stupid, but he was right in one thing: you can and have the right to ask for the records of everyone trying to live in your country. I know, its difficult.
- AOC is right. I do not know if im biased, but this person is really, really stupid.
Its hard for me to give this person credit.
- Guarantee free speech.
The same thing that progressives and cancel culture does is the same thing a totalitarian leader does. Free speech, whether you feel offended or not, is the only tool societies have to defend themselves.
David Livingstone Smith is clear when it comes to explaining the psychology of war and violence.
Dehumanization is having two ideas at the same time concerning another group -the group is human, and at the same time it is not; it is a demon, a cockroach or any other hazardous vector-.
Dehumanization is a political and ideological tool, that uses coalitionary proactive aggression in human psychology (please read Richard W. Wrangham's "The Goodness Paradox". Many examples include most known genocides: Stalin's genocide, the Holocaust, the Rwanda genocide, another one in Birmania, Boznia and Herzegovina, and the slave trade business in colonial America and Europe.
Yes, humans can be violent, yes, war is a human invention, and yeah, we are the number one when it comes to killing millions of us due to coalitionary thinking, BUT, dehumanization serves a one purpose: allow one group to target another one and allowing that oppresive group to exterminate the other one. The reasons for extermination could be fear, politics or social darwinism.
So, to sum up:
- Donald Trump is an incendiary asshole (again)
He compared Trump's speech to Goebbels and Hitler's speech. The example is clear, both speeches refer to "the other" as social scum. But, Trump as idiot he may be, was not a genocidal maniac.
His spechees were stupid, but he was right in one thing: you can and have the right to ask for the records of everyone trying to live in your country. I know, its difficult.
- AOC is right. I do not know if im biased, but this person is really, really stupid.
Its hard for me to give this person credit.
- Guarantee free speech.
The same thing that progressives and cancel culture does is the same thing a totalitarian leader does. Free speech, whether you feel offended or not, is the only tool societies have to defend themselves.
September 27, 2022
(DNF @ 30%)
I decided to set this book aside at chapter 11, when the author compared two monuments in Maine, one was in remembrance of a cargo of lobsters, victims of a car accident, the other monument commemorating victims of American Civil War. This comparison may have been an intentionally provocative move, stirring the reader’s interest and challenging their ideas, but the preposterousness of the author arguments was enough for me to abandon the book.
I should have been alerted to the Prof. Livingstone Smith writing style in an earlier chapters, one that stands out was a statement in chapter 2:
“the then First Lady Hillary Clinton were still characterizing young black men as superpredators – savage beasts in human form”.
This statement shocked me and I did try to find evidence for it. Unfortunately I couldn't find any evidence substantiating this statement, except for an interview which, to be honest, Ms Clinton mentioned “superpredators” albeit not in relation to young black people, but in regards to gangs, besides there was no mention of “savage beats in human form” in that interview. Maybe the author was refering to another episode? I would be eager to know where he got it from.
The omission of references on strong statements like that one is puzzling given that Livingstone Smith is a professor and should know the importance of reference when writing articles, and besides, he provides many of them (and on other quotes) in his notes at the end of the book. I should make clear that I am not one of Ms Clinton supporters (far from it), however I don’t like to find unsubstantiated inflammatory statement s in the books I choose to read, as it makes me question the truthfulness of the writer other statements.
In all honesty, continuing with this book felt like a waste of my time.
I decided to set this book aside at chapter 11, when the author compared two monuments in Maine, one was in remembrance of a cargo of lobsters, victims of a car accident, the other monument commemorating victims of American Civil War. This comparison may have been an intentionally provocative move, stirring the reader’s interest and challenging their ideas, but the preposterousness of the author arguments was enough for me to abandon the book.
I should have been alerted to the Prof. Livingstone Smith writing style in an earlier chapters, one that stands out was a statement in chapter 2:
“the then First Lady Hillary Clinton were still characterizing young black men as superpredators – savage beasts in human form”.
This statement shocked me and I did try to find evidence for it. Unfortunately I couldn't find any evidence substantiating this statement, except for an interview which, to be honest, Ms Clinton mentioned “superpredators” albeit not in relation to young black people, but in regards to gangs, besides there was no mention of “savage beats in human form” in that interview. Maybe the author was refering to another episode? I would be eager to know where he got it from.
The omission of references on strong statements like that one is puzzling given that Livingstone Smith is a professor and should know the importance of reference when writing articles, and besides, he provides many of them (and on other quotes) in his notes at the end of the book. I should make clear that I am not one of Ms Clinton supporters (far from it), however I don’t like to find unsubstantiated inflammatory statement s in the books I choose to read, as it makes me question the truthfulness of the writer other statements.
In all honesty, continuing with this book felt like a waste of my time.
January 19, 2025
Discovered this book after reading Livingstone Smith’s review of “Humankind: A Hopeful History” by Rutger Bergman. (Terrific review, by the way.) I was floored by how in-depth “On Inhumanity” was, yet how clearly articulated. It helped me understand the multifaceted nature of dehumanization using theory and historical evidence. It examines the connections between racism, cruelty, oppression and dehumanization while underscoring their differences (and what makes dehumanization uniquely awful). Concludes with a helpful chapter on how to resist dehumanization in daily life — whether dehumanization committed by others or potentially yourself. This book challenged my prior assumptions several times.
I felt moved to read this book after Trump’s reelection, when a disturbingly high number of political leaders and voters of all stripes seem ready to celebrate or permit dehumanizing language and policy in American civic life. Livingstone Smith emphasizes an important but troubling lesson: all kinds of ordinary people — fellow voters, neighbors, coworkers, family, friends, community leaders, and even ourselves — are all capable of dehumanization, and we must be vigilant in guarding against it. Dehumanization is, sadly, far more common and banal than we think it is, even if its ordinariness makes it no less harmful.
On a final note, I read this book alongside “Weathering: The Extraordinary Stress of Ordinary Life on the Body in an Unjust Society” by Dr. Arline Geronimus. It examines the research-backed biological and physiological damage that racism and class oppression impose on marginalized populations. While “Weathering” and “On Inhumanity” deal with separate subjects, their focuses are complementary in interesting ways; both books look at the damage wrought by systems and behaviors of discrimination and “othering”. I liked pairing these books.
I felt moved to read this book after Trump’s reelection, when a disturbingly high number of political leaders and voters of all stripes seem ready to celebrate or permit dehumanizing language and policy in American civic life. Livingstone Smith emphasizes an important but troubling lesson: all kinds of ordinary people — fellow voters, neighbors, coworkers, family, friends, community leaders, and even ourselves — are all capable of dehumanization, and we must be vigilant in guarding against it. Dehumanization is, sadly, far more common and banal than we think it is, even if its ordinariness makes it no less harmful.
On a final note, I read this book alongside “Weathering: The Extraordinary Stress of Ordinary Life on the Body in an Unjust Society” by Dr. Arline Geronimus. It examines the research-backed biological and physiological damage that racism and class oppression impose on marginalized populations. While “Weathering” and “On Inhumanity” deal with separate subjects, their focuses are complementary in interesting ways; both books look at the damage wrought by systems and behaviors of discrimination and “othering”. I liked pairing these books.
January 13, 2021
The book is quite harrowing to read, especially when the author references recent events, like in Myanmar.
Other thing that I find has to be written down is the description of the propaganda and the terms that are use to dehumanise groups indirectly.
"The practice of explicitly describing others as less than humans is nowadays often frowned upon and is widely condemned. So propagandists who cultivate dehumanizing attitudes most often do this indirectly. Rather than overtly referring to a group of people as animals or monsters, they describe them in ways that invoke this image in the minds of their listeners.
There are certain themes that reappear over and over in this dehumanizing discourse.
The common one is criminality. The dehumanised group is made to appear inherently threatening and their criminality is represented as crudely animalistic typically involving rape and murder.
Another common theme is parasitism. The dehumanised group conspires to exploit the majority sucking the blood out of decent, hard-working people and claiming privileges that they haven't earned.
Images of filth and disease are also very frequent. Dehumanised groups are vectors of infection, they are dirty and contaminating. They are often thought of as invaders, outsiders who are taking us over. They are reproducing at an alarming rate and they will soon outnumber us unless we do something about it."
Does this not sound like Trump talking about immigrants coming from Central America? Or the headlines in British newspapers?
Other thing that I find has to be written down is the description of the propaganda and the terms that are use to dehumanise groups indirectly.
"The practice of explicitly describing others as less than humans is nowadays often frowned upon and is widely condemned. So propagandists who cultivate dehumanizing attitudes most often do this indirectly. Rather than overtly referring to a group of people as animals or monsters, they describe them in ways that invoke this image in the minds of their listeners.
There are certain themes that reappear over and over in this dehumanizing discourse.
The common one is criminality. The dehumanised group is made to appear inherently threatening and their criminality is represented as crudely animalistic typically involving rape and murder.
Another common theme is parasitism. The dehumanised group conspires to exploit the majority sucking the blood out of decent, hard-working people and claiming privileges that they haven't earned.
Images of filth and disease are also very frequent. Dehumanised groups are vectors of infection, they are dirty and contaminating. They are often thought of as invaders, outsiders who are taking us over. They are reproducing at an alarming rate and they will soon outnumber us unless we do something about it."
Does this not sound like Trump talking about immigrants coming from Central America? Or the headlines in British newspapers?
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 6, 2022
On inhumanity by David Livingstone Smith is a primer on how people dehumanize other human beings. Smith uses philosophy, psychology, and sociology to explain the process of dehumanization and why we do it.
Often dehumanization is purposely done by one group to justify their own actions for example dehumanizing Africans to justify slavery, dehumanizing Jews to justify the holocaust, or dehumanizing Blacks to justify apartheid. All of these examples were done so that one group could triumph over another.
One of the main messages of this book is that we are all susceptible to dehumanizing others. “I mean this seriously. It’s easy to imagine that you would be immune from such influences. You might think that, had you been a German in 1938, you would have resisted the regime, or that if you were a wealthy Southerner in 1850, you would have renounced owning slaves… If you harbor thoughts like these, it's possible that they are true, but its far more like that they are false. It’s easy to be moral heroes in our fantasies. Dehumanization isn’t something that’s a choice. Imagining that it’s something that is within our conscious control is to greatly underestimate the danger.”
This book is not light reading. It is dense and heavy and deals with exceedingly difficult topics like genocide and war. That being said, understanding dehumanization is imperative to understanding how atrocities are committed and how we can resist doing this to others.
Often dehumanization is purposely done by one group to justify their own actions for example dehumanizing Africans to justify slavery, dehumanizing Jews to justify the holocaust, or dehumanizing Blacks to justify apartheid. All of these examples were done so that one group could triumph over another.
One of the main messages of this book is that we are all susceptible to dehumanizing others. “I mean this seriously. It’s easy to imagine that you would be immune from such influences. You might think that, had you been a German in 1938, you would have resisted the regime, or that if you were a wealthy Southerner in 1850, you would have renounced owning slaves… If you harbor thoughts like these, it's possible that they are true, but its far more like that they are false. It’s easy to be moral heroes in our fantasies. Dehumanization isn’t something that’s a choice. Imagining that it’s something that is within our conscious control is to greatly underestimate the danger.”
This book is not light reading. It is dense and heavy and deals with exceedingly difficult topics like genocide and war. That being said, understanding dehumanization is imperative to understanding how atrocities are committed and how we can resist doing this to others.
December 4, 2023
Would've dnfed if it wasn't for a class.
I've read a lot about racism and dehumanization in the past few years, and this book didn't have anything new to offer. Smith repeated ideas to the point where it felt like he was getting paid by the word. I found myself skipping over whole paragraphs because they were retreading old ground. I hate it when books talk down to the reader, and this one did just that. We don't need five different examples to explain an idea, just one will suffice.
I've read some great essays that really delve deep into these same topics, and it felt like Smith was just skimming the surface. I'm not giving it one star because I do appreciate what the author was trying to do here -- and maybe this book would have more to offer to someone who was just starting to get into these theories and ideas -- but I personally found this book to be borderline unreadable.
I've read a lot about racism and dehumanization in the past few years, and this book didn't have anything new to offer. Smith repeated ideas to the point where it felt like he was getting paid by the word. I found myself skipping over whole paragraphs because they were retreading old ground. I hate it when books talk down to the reader, and this one did just that. We don't need five different examples to explain an idea, just one will suffice.
I've read some great essays that really delve deep into these same topics, and it felt like Smith was just skimming the surface. I'm not giving it one star because I do appreciate what the author was trying to do here -- and maybe this book would have more to offer to someone who was just starting to get into these theories and ideas -- but I personally found this book to be borderline unreadable.
dnf
January 10, 2023I wanted to read this because I read Humankind as well as this author’s critique of that book. I wanted to get his more pessimistic take on humans.
However, 5 chapters into this book I feel let down. It feels like a lot of words have been said but not much of substance has come out of it. Part of my problem is that I think I want a deeper dive than this appears to be - his goal is to be accessible, but sometimes that makes a book feel *too* basic.
One point he made that I appreciate is that the idea of “monsters” at all is a dangerous idea. We participate in dehumanization of a different sort when we label people who do evil things as monsters. We don’t acknowledge that given certain circumstances we could very well behave the same way as that “monster.” I think that’s an important point.
However, 5 chapters into this book I feel let down. It feels like a lot of words have been said but not much of substance has come out of it. Part of my problem is that I think I want a deeper dive than this appears to be - his goal is to be accessible, but sometimes that makes a book feel *too* basic.
One point he made that I appreciate is that the idea of “monsters” at all is a dangerous idea. We participate in dehumanization of a different sort when we label people who do evil things as monsters. We don’t acknowledge that given certain circumstances we could very well behave the same way as that “monster.” I think that’s an important point.
February 11, 2025
Meh
I was not overly impressed with this text. It does have some valuable information but as other reviewers have mentioned it’s very repetitive while still glossing over entire topics. It also is very narrow in the scope of examples- he only lists the most extreme examples with regards to what dehumanization is and how it affects individuals. This makes it relatively easy for the average reader to convince themselves it doesn’t apply to them. Additionally, while the author admits to being apprehensive regarding the subtitle regarding how to resist dehumanization I found that section to be sorely lacking.
This book has been on my TBR list for awhile now. I finally got around to reading it and am very disappointed.
I was not overly impressed with this text. It does have some valuable information but as other reviewers have mentioned it’s very repetitive while still glossing over entire topics. It also is very narrow in the scope of examples- he only lists the most extreme examples with regards to what dehumanization is and how it affects individuals. This makes it relatively easy for the average reader to convince themselves it doesn’t apply to them. Additionally, while the author admits to being apprehensive regarding the subtitle regarding how to resist dehumanization I found that section to be sorely lacking.
This book has been on my TBR list for awhile now. I finally got around to reading it and am very disappointed.
March 20, 2021
This book is a thinner, yet more refined version of the book "Less than Human" by the same author. It covers the same essential theory, including many of the same examples and analysis - which is not a bad thing.
Something I wanted in the previous book - continuing the line between dehumanizing people and the maltreatment of non-human animals - is also addressed in this book, seemingly suggesting we should also consider our treatment of animals ethically as part of this larger picture.
The examples in this book, and the language quoted, can be both difficult to digest, keep in mind.
Something I wanted in the previous book - continuing the line between dehumanizing people and the maltreatment of non-human animals - is also addressed in this book, seemingly suggesting we should also consider our treatment of animals ethically as part of this larger picture.
The examples in this book, and the language quoted, can be both difficult to digest, keep in mind.
November 19, 2023
I thought this was a fine book. I hesitate to say “great” just because he makes very, very strong claims without citing sources where I struggled to find the source elsewhere. Another review mentions his quotation of Hilary Clinton referring to young black men as “super predators” when she was referring to gangs rather than black people.
Despite that, I think he has a great analysis of “race” and how/why we conceive of it, and the definitions he suggests for racialization/racism and dehumanization are extremely valuable. I wish more people framed these concepts this way!
Despite that, I think he has a great analysis of “race” and how/why we conceive of it, and the definitions he suggests for racialization/racism and dehumanization are extremely valuable. I wish more people framed these concepts this way!
December 2, 2025
A really excellent primer on dehumanization, and the current understanding of it.
This is aiming to be a short, simple 101 designed to give an overview and it does an exceptional job of that - this is a book for people who haven't thought about this much.
If you're already up on the scholarship and the discourse you will find it rudimentary, and that's fine - it's not for you.
It's logical, clear, and unavoidable in its basic insights, and perfectly designed to lead you into deeper scholarship if you struggle with some of the basics outlined here.
This is aiming to be a short, simple 101 designed to give an overview and it does an exceptional job of that - this is a book for people who haven't thought about this much.
If you're already up on the scholarship and the discourse you will find it rudimentary, and that's fine - it's not for you.
It's logical, clear, and unavoidable in its basic insights, and perfectly designed to lead you into deeper scholarship if you struggle with some of the basics outlined here.
January 1, 2021
Smith's arguments rely on the idea that dehumanization occurs two twin views, the idea that the target is not human, but also that they are a lower sub-human. They are both something entirely different, and something that is equal and lesser; they have a humanity but one that is lesser. Looks in detail at racism in the US (especially the issue of lynching), the Holocaust, and the Rwandan Genocide.
August 16, 2021
This is a book all humanity should read.
“Political leaders especially those with an authoritarian vent often use dehumanizing rhetoric as a means of persuasion because of its power to influence human behavior. First they frighten us getting us to think that some group of people are demons, monsters, or deadly predators.Then they court our support by promisind to save us from these terrors.”
“Political leaders especially those with an authoritarian vent often use dehumanizing rhetoric as a means of persuasion because of its power to influence human behavior. First they frighten us getting us to think that some group of people are demons, monsters, or deadly predators.Then they court our support by promisind to save us from these terrors.”
September 26, 2023
This is a spot on analysis of how people in power treat those not in power. It shows how quickly unjust rhetoric can have dire consequences. This is some of the best perspective on racial dehumanization that I have read. It’s always iron that self proclaimed atheists can be so compassionate and humane. It’s almost as if the law of God was written on their hearts whether they like it or not.
May 19, 2025
I was assigned this book as preliminary reading before leaving on a travel course to Germany and Poland to study the effects of Christian nationalism on the Holocaust. This book will not only serve me well on the travel course, but has now also provided me with a deeper understanding of dehumanization in order to recognize it in today’s society. I highly recommend it!
January 15, 2021
This book clearly defined dehumanization and separates it from related topic such as racism, sexism, ableism, etc. It provides a template of identifying the beginning of dehumanization on oneself and in one's environment. A must-read during times of rising populism and authoritarianism.
Want to read
September 16, 2020As heard on Clear+Vivid with Alan Alda:
https://omny.fm/shows/clear-vivid-wit...
https://omny.fm/shows/clear-vivid-wit...
January 21, 2021
An Intriguing read for sure.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews