Dehumanization

The humanity of what we eat. Conceptions of human uniqueness among vegetarians and omnivores

by Michał Bilewicz

Co-authored with Roland Imhoff and Marek Drogosz, published in 'European Journal of Social Psychology', 2011

Studies on dehumanization demonstrated that denying certain human characteristics might serve as a strategy for moral... more Studies on dehumanization demonstrated that denying certain human characteristics might serve as a strategy for moral disengagement. Meat consumption—especially in the times of cruel animal farming—is related to the exclusion of animals from the human scope of justice. In the present research, it was hypothesized that the conception of human uniqueness (denying animals certain psychological characteristics) might be a strategy of meat-eaters’ moral disengagement. Three studies compared the extent to which vegetarians and omnivores attribute psychological characteristics to humans versus animals. In Study 1, vegetarian participants ascribed more secondary (uniquely human) emotions to animals than did the omnivores; however, there were no differences in primary (animalistic) emotions. Study 2 showed that omnivores distinguish human characteristics from animalistic ones more sharply than vegetarians do, while both groups do not differ in distinguishing human characteristics from mechanistic ones. Study 3 confirmed the results by showing that omnivores ascribed less secondary emotions to traditionally edible animals than to the non-edible species, while vegetarians did not differentiate these animals. These results support the claim that the lay conceptions of ‘human uniqueness’ are strategies of moral disengagement.

Increasing outgroup trust, reducing infrahumanization, and enhancing future contact intentions via imagined intergroup contact

by Sofia Stathi

Vezzali, L., Capozza, D, Stathi, S. & Giovannini, D. (2012). Increasing outgroup trust, reducing infrahumanization, and enhancing future contact intentions via imagined intergroup contact. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 437-440.

The present study was designed to test whether imagined intergroup contact (Crisp & Turner, 2009) affects... more The present study was designed to test whether imagined intergroup contact (Crisp & Turner, 2009) affects attributions of human emotions to outgroup members and positive behavioral intentions toward the outgroup via increased outgroup trust. Italian fourth-graders took part in a three-week intervention, where they were asked to imagine meeting an unknown immigrant child in various social settings. One week after the last session, they were administered the dependent measures. Results revealed an indirect effect of imagined contact on both behavioral intentions and attributions of uniquely human emotions to outgroup members via outgroup trust. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed, and an integration of the imagined contact and infrahumanization literature is suggested.

The Problem of Evolution: Natural-Physical or Human-Social?

by Gregory Sandstrom

Published in the book "Charles Darwin and Modern Biology," St. Petersburg: Institute for the History of Science and Technology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2010.

This article shows that the most important challenge to ‘evolutionary theory’ is not in the biological sciences, but... more This article shows that the most important challenge to ‘evolutionary theory’ is not in the biological sciences, but rather in the human-social sciences. By contrasting ‘human selection,’ or the category of ‘artifi cial selection’ that Darwin used, with ‘natural selection’ a gap between evolutionary theories is identifi ed. It is wrong to speak of ‘evolution’ with respect to human-social change. This is because evolution is a type of change, while change is not a type of evolution. Human-social change is not ‘evolution’ because agency, freewill, decision-making, purpose and teleology are involved. The concept of ‘extension’ is introduced as an example of non-evolutionary human-social change. The suggestion of a new era in communication about development and change is made according to a paradigm of intentional human-social extension.

The humanity of what we eat. Conceptions of human uniqueness among vegetarians and omnivores.

by Roland Imhoff

Eurpoean Journal of Social Psychology, 2011 // co-authored with Michal Bilewicz and Marek Drogosz

Studies on dehumanization demonstrated that denying certain human characteristics might serve as a strategy for moral... more Studies on dehumanization demonstrated that denying certain human characteristics might serve as a strategy for moral disengagement. Meat consumption – especially in the times of cruel animal farming – is related to the exclusion of animals from the human scope of justice. In the present research it was hypothesized that the conception of human-uniqueness (denying animals certain psychological characteristics) might be a strategy of meat-eaters’ moral disengagement. Three studies compared the extent to which vegetarians and omnivores attribute psychological characteristics to humans vs. animals. In Study 1 vegetarian participants ascribed more secondary (“uniquely human”) emotions to animals than did the omnivores; however there were no differences in primary (“animalistic”) emotions. Study 2 showed that omnivores distinguish human characteristics from animalistic ones more sharply than vegetarians do, while both groups do not differ in distinguishing human characteristics from mechanistic ones. Study 3 confirmed the results by showing that omnivores ascribed less secondary emotions to traditionally edible animals than to the non-edible species, while vegetarians did not differentiate these animals. These results support the claim that the lay conceptions of “human uniqueness” are strategies of moral disengagement.

Genocidal Dehumanisation as a Discursive Strategy in the Modern Era

by Rowan Savage

Thesis (Ph. D.) - University of Sydney, 2009

This thesis asks what role is played by institutionalised dehumanisation in genocide and genocidal killing. In... more This thesis asks what role is played by institutionalised dehumanisation in genocide and genocidal killing. In answering this question, I construct a model of genocidal dehumanisation according to its functions, and its manifest types. I argue that genocidal dehumanisation should be considered a unitary, but internally differentiated, phenomenon; and that it is best conceptualised as one extreme of a continuum of dehumanisation. The different manifestations of institutionalised dehumanisation have a stable and predictable relationship to psychological dispositions, and to practices which enact oppression and destruction. Genocidal dehumanisation exists at the locus of individual psychology, group psychology, culture, and the social. It must therefore be conceptualised through a framework which incorporates insights from each of these fields of inquiry. Hence, the work takes a multidisciplinary approach, employing the concepts of ‘discourse’ and ‘ideology’ to suggest that genocidal dehumanisation is a functional, purposive, and internally differentiated discursive strategy. Within the context of the discursive and social structures of the modern era, dehumanisation becomes a necessity in genocide and genocidal killing. I argue that genocidal dehumanisation can serve two purposes in such episodes: legitimisation, and motivation. However, in its legitimatory aspect, dehumanisation is universally present, whereas in its motivatory aspect it is present only in some cases. Having dealt with questions of function, I propose a three-part typology of the construction of Othered outgroups in genocide and genocidal killing: as disease organisms, animals or subhumans, and as bureaucratic-euphemistic reifications. Each of these types is a product of the intersection of specific modern discourses. While all three legitimise the elimination of the target group, the first type, medicalisation, is always motivatory, the second, animalisation, is sometimes motivatory, and the third, bureaucratic-euphemistic reification, is not motivatory. Finally, I suggest the way in which this conceptual model, which covers functionality, type, and the relationship between the two, can be used both as a means of historical analysis and as a predictive tool.

‘Vermin to be Cleared off the Face of the Earth’: Perpetrator Representations of Genocide Victims as Animals

by Rowan Savage

Colin Tatz, Peter Arnold, Sandra Tatz (eds)
Genocide Perspectives III: Essays on the Holocaust and Other... more Colin Tatz, Peter Arnold, Sandra Tatz (eds)
Genocide Perspectives III: Essays on the Holocaust and Other Genocides
Brandl & Schlesinger with the Australian Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies
Sydney
2006
pp. 17-53.

"Disease Incarnate": Biopolitical Discourse and Genocidal Dehumanisation in the Age of Modernity

by Rowan Savage

This paper traces the development of the concept of the outgroup as a biological threat, and the relationship of this... more This paper traces the development of the concept of the outgroup as a biological threat, and the relationship of this concept to the practice of genocide. The biopolitical discourse which emerged in the modern period made the practice of genocide conceivable, and constructed genocide as justifiable and as necessary. Two developments in the modern period are highlighted: firstly, the conception of the boundaried and ethnically homogenous nation-state, and secondly, new biological theories about race, and about the spread of disease. Discourse emerging from the biological sciences dehumanised outgroups both literally and metaphorically. This dehumanisation, in combination with the ideal of the homogenous nation-state and the new technologies of population, provided a justification and a motivation for genocide, and a model of implementation. Conceptions of the nature of dehumanisation as a process are examined, with specific reference to the role of language and metaphor, and to concepts of hygiene, purity and contamination. Particular attention is paid to eugenics and Social Darwinism, to the role of physicians in genocide, and to the relationship between medical and military vocabularies. The features of this discourse, its persistence, and its commonality in otherwise widely different genocidal episodes, are exposed through an examination of four twentieth-century genocides (Armenia, Nazi genocide, Cambodia, and the former Yugoslavia).