Edit filter log

'{{short description|Behavior or process that undermines individuality of and in others}} {{For|the album|Dehumanization (album){{!}}''Dehumanization'' (album)}} {{Multiple issues| {{Weasel|date=March 2021}} {{Original research|date=March 2021}} }} {{Discrimination sidebar|state=collapsed}} [[File:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 06b.jpg|thumb|right|upright=1.2|link=Warsaw Ghetto boy|In his [[Stroop Report|report]] on the suppression of the [[Warsaw Ghetto uprising]], [[Jürgen Stroop]] described Jews resisting deportation to [[Nazi Germany|Nazi]] camps as "bandits".]] [[File:Abu Ghraib 68.jpg|thumb|[[Lynndie England]] pulls a leash attached to the neck of a prisoner in [[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse|Abu Ghraib prison]], who is forced to crawl on the floor, while [[Megan Ambuhl]] watches.]] '''Dehumanization''' is the denial of full humanness in others and the cruelty and suffering that accompanies it.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Haslam|first=Nick|date=2006|title=Dehumanization: An Integrative Review|url=https://newclasses.nyu.edu/portal/site/bd325357-284c-4867-9164-8e088b8f7f4f/tool/37d05c72-c02a-426c-9ac9-83e7a9bfab85/discussionForum/message/dfAllMessages|journal=Personality and Social Psychology Review|volume=10|issue=3|pages=252–264|via=Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc|doi=10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4|pmid=16859440|s2cid=18142674|access-date=2019-06-22|archive-date=2020-09-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200910172536/https://shibboleth.nyu.edu/idp/profile/SAML2/Unsolicited/SSO?execution=e1s1|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Haslam2014">{{cite journal |last1=Haslam |first1=Nick |last2=Loughnan |first2=Steve |title=Dehumanization and Infrahumanization |journal=Annual Review of Psychology |date=3 January 2014 |volume=65 |issue=1 |pages=399–423 |doi=10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045|pmid=23808915 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Spens|first=Christiana|date=2014-09-01|title=The Theatre of Cruelty: Dehumanization, Objectification & Abu Ghraib|journal=Contemporary Voices: St Andrews Journal of International Relations|language=en|volume=5|issue=3|doi=10.15664/jtr.946|issn=2516-3159|doi-access=free}}</ref> A practical definition refers to it as the viewing and treatment of other people as though they lack the mental capacities that are commonly attributed to human beings.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Families in the Intensive Care Unit: A Guide to Understanding, Engaging, and Supporting at the Bedside|last=Netzer|first=Giora|publisher=Springer|year=2018|isbn=9783319943367|location=Cham|page=134}}</ref> In this definition, every act or thought that regards a person as "less than" human is dehumanization.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Dehumanization as the Central Prerequisite for Slavery|last=Enge|first=Erik|publisher=GRIN Verlag|year=2015|isbn=9783668027107|page=3}}</ref> Dehumanization is one technique in [[incitement to genocide]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Gordon |first1=Gregory S. |title=Atrocity Speech Law: Foundation, Fragmentation, Fruition |date=2017 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-061270-2 |language=en|page=286}}</ref> It has also been used to justify war, judicial and [[extrajudicial killing]], [[slavery]], [[abortion]], the confiscation of property, denial of suffrage and other rights, and to attack enemies or political opponents. == Conceptualizations == [[File:1895erzurum-victims.jpg|thumb|Slain Armenians in [[Erzurum]] as part of [[Hamidian massacre]]]] Behaviorally, dehumanization describes a disposition towards others that debases the others' individuality as either an "individual" species or an "individual" object (e.g., someone who acts inhumanely towards humans). As a process, dehumanization may be understood as the opposite of [[personification]], a figure of speech in which inanimate objects or abstractions are endowed with human qualities; dehumanization then is the disendowment of these same qualities or a reduction to [[abstraction]].<ref>{{cite web|date=2019-03-17|title=Dehumanization is a mental loophole..|url=https://betterblokes.org.nz/2019/03/dehumanization-is-a-mental-loophole/|access-date=2021-03-25|website=Free Peer Support for Male Sexual Abuse Survivors|language=en-US}}</ref> In almost all contexts, dehumanization is used [[pejorative]]ly along with a disruption of [[social norms]], with the former applying to the actor(s) of behavioral dehumanization and the latter applying to the action(s) or processes of dehumanization. For instance, there is dehumanization for those who are perceived as lacking in [[culture]] or [[civility]], which are concepts that are believed to distinguish humans from animals.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Dehumanizing Christians: Cultural Competition in a Multicultural World|last=Yancey|first=George|publisher=Transaction Publishers|year=2014|isbn=9781412852678|location=New Brunswick, NJ|page=36}}</ref> Social norms define humane behavior and reflexively define what is outside of humane behavior or inhumane. Dehumanization differs from inhumane behaviors or processes in its breadth to propose competing social norms. It is an action of dehumanization as the old norms are depreciated to the competing new norms, which then redefine the action of dehumanization. If the new norms lose acceptance, then the action remains one of dehumanization. The definition of ''dehumanization'' remains in a reflexive state of a [[Type–token distinction|type-token ambiguity]] relative to both individual and societal scales. [[File:Contest To Cut Down 100 People.jpg|thumb|Two Japanese officers in [[Nanjing Massacre|occupied China]] competing to see who could kill (with a sword) [[Contest to kill 100 people using a sword|one hundred people first]]]] In biological terms, dehumanization can be described as an [[introduced species]] marginalizing the human species, or an introduced person/process that debases other people inhumanely.<ref>{{cite web|title=StackPath|url=https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r30885.pdf|access-date=2021-03-25|website=www.corteidh.or.cr}}</ref> In [[political science]] and [[jurisprudence]], the act of dehumanization is the inferential alienation of [[human rights]] or [[denaturalization]] of [[natural rights]], a definition contingent upon presiding [[international law]] rather than social norms limited by [[human geography]]. In this context, a specialty within species does not need to constitute [[global citizenship]] or its inalienable rights; the human genome inherits both. It is theorized that dehumanization takes on two forms: ''animalistic dehumanization'', which is employed on a mostly intergroup basis; and ''mechanistic dehumanization'', which is employed on a mostly interpersonal basis.<ref name="Haslam, N, 2006">{{cite journal |last1=Haslam |first1=Nick |title=Dehumanization: An Integrative Review |journal=[[Personality and Social Psychology Review]] |volume=10 |issue=3 |year=2006 |pages=252–264 |pmid=16859440 |doi=10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4 |s2cid=18142674 |url=http://general.utpb.edu/FAC/hughes_j/Haslam%20on%20dehumanization.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130626110654/http://general.utpb.edu/fac/hughes_j/Haslam%20on%20dehumanization.pdf |archive-date=2013-06-26 }}</ref> Dehumanization can occur discursively (e.g., idiomatic language that likens individual human beings to non-human animals, [[verbal abuse]], erasing one's voice from discourse), symbolically (e.g., imagery), or physically (e.g., chattel [[slavery]], [[physical abuse]], refusing eye contact). Dehumanization often ignores the target's [[Individualism|individuality]] (i.e., the creative and exciting aspects of their personality) and can hinder one from feeling [[empathy]] or correctly understanding a [[Social stigma|stigmatized]] group.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Andrighetto|first1=Luca|last2=Baldissarri|first2=Cristina|last3=Lattanzio|first3=Sara|last4=Loughnan|first4=Steve|last5=Volpato|first5=Chiara|date=2014|title=Human-itarian aid? Two forms of dehumanization and willingness to help after natural disasters|journal=British Journal of Social Psychology|language=en|volume=53|issue=3|pages=573–584|doi=10.1111/bjso.12066|pmid=24588786|issn=2044-8309|hdl=10281/53044|hdl-access=free}}</ref> Dehumanization may be carried out by a social [[institution]] (such as a state, school, or family), interpersonally, or even within oneself. Dehumanization can be unintentional, especially upon individuals, as with some types of ''de facto'' [[racism]]. State-organized dehumanization has historically been directed against perceived political, [[Race (human classification)|racial]], [[Ethnic group|ethnic]], national, or religious [[minority group]]s. Other minoritized and [[Marginalization|marginalized]] individuals and groups (based on [[sexual orientation]], [[gender]], disability, [[Social class|class]], or some other organizing principle) are also susceptible to various forms of dehumanization. The concept of dehumanization has received empirical attention in the [[Psychology|psychological]] literature.<ref>Moller, A. C., & Deci, E. L. (2010). "Interpersonal control, dehumanization, and violence: A self-determination theory perspective". ''[[Group Processes & Intergroup Relations]]'', 13, 41-53. [http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2010_MollerDeci_GPIR.pdf?hosts= (open access)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130622030420/http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2010_MollerDeci_GPIR.pdf?hosts= |date=2013-06-22 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Haslam|first1=Nick|last2=Kashima|first2=Yoshihisa|last3=Loughnan|first3=Stephen|last4=Shi|first4=Junqi|last5=Suitner|first5=Caterina|title=Subhuman, Inhuman, and Superhuman: Contrasting Humans with Nonhumans in Three Cultures|journal=Social Cognition|volume=26|issue=2|year=2008|pages=248–258|doi=10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.248}}</ref> It is conceptually related to [[infrahumanization]],<ref name="Leyens, JPh, 2000">{{cite journal|last1=Leyens|first1=Jacques-Philippe|last2=Paladino|first2=Paola M.|last3=Rodriguez-Torres|first3=Ramon|last4=Vaes|first4=Jeroen|last5=Demoulin|first5=Stephanie|last6=Rodriguez-Perez|first6=Armando|last7=Gaunt|first7=Ruth|title=The Emotional Side of Prejudice: The Attribution of Secondary Emotions to Ingroups and Outgroups|journal=Personality and Social Psychology Review|volume=4|issue=2|year=2000|pages=186–197|url=http://www.armandorodriguez.es/Articulos/archivos/LeyensPaladinoRTorresVaesDemoulinRPerezGaunt2000.pdf|doi=10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_06|s2cid=144981501|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130611113035/http://armandorodriguez.es/Articulos/archivos/LeyensPaladinoRTorresVaesDemoulinRPerezGaunt2000.pdf|archive-date=2013-06-11}}</ref> [[delegitimization]],<ref name="Bar-Tal, D, 1989">Bar-Tal, D. (1989). "Delegitimization: The extreme case of stereotyping and prejudice". In D. Bar-Tal, C. Graumann, A. Kruglanski, & [[Wolfgang Stroebe|W. Stroebe]] (Eds.), ''Stereotyping and prejudice: Changing conceptions''. New York, NY: Springer.</ref> [[moral exclusion]],<ref name="Opotow, S., 1990">{{cite journal|last1=Opotow|first1=Susan|title=Moral Exclusion and Injustice: An Introduction|journal=Journal of Social Issues|volume=46|issue=1|year=1990|pages=1–20|doi=10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb00268.x}}</ref> and [[objectification]].<ref name="Nussbaum, M (1999)">Nussbaum, M. C. (1999). ''Sex and Social Justice''. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|0195112105}}</ref> Dehumanization occurs across several domains; it is facilitated by status, power, and [[social connection]]; and results in behaviors like exclusion, violence, and support for violence against others. "Dehumanisation is viewed as a central component to intergroup violence because it is frequently the most important precursor to moral exclusion, the process by which stigmatized groups are placed outside the boundary in which moral values, rules, and considerations of fairness apply."<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Goof|first1=Phillip|last2=Eberhardt|first2=Jennifer|last3=Williams|first3=Melissa|last4=Jackson|first4=Matthew|date=2008|title=Not yet human: implicit knowledge, historical dehumanization, and contemporary consequences|url=https://web.stanford.edu/~eberhard/downloads/2008-NotYetHuman.pdf|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=94|issue=2|pages=292–306|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.292|pmid=18211178|access-date=7 May 2016|archive-date=17 October 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161017170652/https://web.stanford.edu/~eberhard/downloads/2008-NotYetHuman.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> [[David Livingstone Smith]], director and founder of The Human Nature Project at the University of New England, argues that historically, human beings have been dehumanizing one another for thousands of years.<ref>{{Cite book|title = Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others|url = https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780312532727|url-access = registration|last = Livingstone Smith|first = David|publisher = St. Martin’s Press|year = 2011|pages = [https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780312532727/page/n343 336]|isbn = 9780312532727}}</ref> In his work "The Paradoxes of Dehumanization", Smith proposes that dehumanization simultaneously regards people as human and subhuman. This paradox comes to light, as Smith identifies, because the reason people are dehumanized is so their human attributes can be taken advantage of.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Smith|first1=David Livingstone|last2=Department of Philosophy, Florida State University|date=2016|title=Paradoxes of Dehumanization|url=http://www.pdcnet.org/oom/service?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=&rft.imuse_id=soctheorpract_2016_0042_0002_0416_0443&svc_id=info:www.pdcnet.org/collection|journal=Social Theory and Practice|volume=42|issue=2|pages=416–443|doi=10.5840/soctheorpract201642222|issn=0037-802X|access-date=2020-09-10|archive-date=2020-09-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200910172535/https://www.pdcnet.org/soctheorpract/content/soctheorpract_2016_0042_0002_0416_0443|url-status=live}}</ref> === Humanness === In [[Herbert Kelman]]'s work on dehumanization, humanness has two features: "identity" (i.e., a perception of the person "as an individual, independent and distinguishable from others, capable of making choices") and "community" (i.e., a perception of the person as "part of an interconnected network of individuals who care for each other"). When a target's agency and embeddedness in a community are denied, they no longer elicit compassion or other moral responses and may suffer violence.<ref>Kelman, H. C. (1976). "Violence without restraint: Reflections on the dehumanization of victims and victimizers". pp. 282-314 in G. M. Kren & L. H. Rappoport (Eds.), ''Varieties of Psychohistory''. New York: Springer. {{ISBN|0826119409}}</ref> === Objectification === Psychologist [[Barbara Fredrickson]] and Tomi-Ann Roberts argued that the [[sexual objectification]] of women extends beyond [[pornography]] (which emphasizes women's bodies over their uniquely human mental and emotional characteristics) to society generally. There is a normative emphasis on female appearance that causes women to take a third-person perspective on their bodies.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Fredrickson|first1=Barbara L.|title=Objectification Theory: Toward Understanding Women's Lived Experiences and Mental Health Risks|last2=Roberts|first2=Tomi-Ann|journal=Psychology of Women Quarterly|volume=21|issue=2|year=1997|pages=173–206|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258181826|doi=10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x|s2cid=145272074|access-date=2014-11-07|archive-date=2020-09-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200910172534/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258181826_Objectification_Theory_Toward_Understanding_Women%27s_Lived_Experiences_and_Mental_Health_Risks|url-status=live}}</ref> The psychological distance women may feel from their bodies might cause them to dehumanize themselves. Some research has indicated that women and men exhibit a "sexual body part recognition bias", in which women's sexual body parts are better recognized when presented in isolation than in their entire bodies. In contrast, men's sexual body parts are better recognized in the context of their entire bodies than in isolation.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Gervais|first1=Sarah J.|last2=Vescio|first2=Theresa K.|last3=Förster|first3=Jens|last4=Maass|first4=Anne|last5=Suitner|first5=Caterina|title=Seeing women as objects: The sexual body part recognition bias|journal=European Journal of Social Psychology|volume=42|issue=6|year=2012|pages=743–753|doi=10.1002/ejsp.1890}}</ref> Men who dehumanize women as either animals or objects are more liable to rape and sexually harass women and display more negative attitudes toward female rape victims.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Rudman|first1=L. A.|last2=Mescher|first2=K.|title=Of Animals and Objects: Men's Implicit Dehumanization of Women and Likelihood of Sexual Aggression|journal=Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin|volume=38|issue=6|year=2012|pages=734–746|url=http://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudman__mescher_2012._of_animals_and_objects.pdf|doi=10.1177/0146167212436401|pmid=22374225|s2cid=13701627|access-date=2014-11-07|archive-date=2014-11-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141107204838/http://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudman__mescher_2012._of_animals_and_objects.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> Philosopher [[Martha Nussbaum]] identified seven components of sexual [[objectification]]: [[wikt:instrumentality|instrumentality]], denial of [[autonomy]], [[wikt:inert|inertness]], [[fungibility]], [[personal boundaries|violability]], [[ownership]], and denial of [[subjectivity]].<ref name="Nussbaum1999">{{cite book|author=Martha C. Nussbaum|title=Sex and Social Justice |chapter=Objectification: Section - Seven Ways to Treat A Person as a Thing |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7zoaKIolT9oC&pg=PA218|date=4 February 1999|publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-535501-7|page=218}}</ref>{{explain|date=September 2020}} In this context, instrumentality refers to when the objectified is used as an instrument to the objectifier's benefit. Denial of autonomy occurs in the form of the objectifier underestimating the objectified and denies their capabilities. In the case of inertness, the objectified is treated as if they are lazy and indolent. Fungibility brands the objectified to be easily replacable. Volability is when the objectifier does not respect the objectified person's personal space or boundaries. Ownership is when the objectified is seen as another person's property. Lastly, the denial of subjectivity is a lack of sympathy for the objectified, or the dismissal of the notion that the objectified has feelings. These seven components cause the objectifier to view the objectified in a disrespectful way, therefore treating them so. <ref>{{Citation |last=Papadaki |first=Evangelia (Lina) |title=Feminist Perspectives on Objectification |date=2021 |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/feminism-objectification/ |work=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |edition=Spring 2021 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=2022-12-01}}</ref> == History == ===Native Americans=== [[File:Woundedknee1891.jpg|thumb|220px|Mass grave for the dead Lakota following the [[Wounded Knee massacre]]. Up to 300 Natives were killed, mostly old men, women and children.<ref>{{cite web|title=Plains Humanities: Wounded Knee Massacre|url=http://plainshumanities.unl.edu/encyclopedia/doc/egp.war.056|access-date=August 9, 2016}}</ref>]] Native Americans were dehumanized as "merciless Indian savages" in the [[United States Declaration of Independence]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Facebook labels declaration of independence as 'hate speech' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/05/facebook-declaration-of-independence-hate-speech |access-date=February 7, 2021 |work=The Guardian}}</ref> Following the [[Wounded Knee massacre]] in December 1890, author [[L. Frank Baum]] wrote:<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.northern.edu/hastingw/baumedts.htm |title=L. Frank Baum's Editorials on the Sioux Nation |access-date=2007-12-09 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071209193251/http://www.northern.edu/hastingw/baumedts.htm |archive-date=December 9, 2007 }} Full text of both, with commentary by professor A. Waller Hastings</ref><blockquote>The ''Pioneer'' has before declared that our only safety depends upon the total extermination [sic] of the Indians. Having wronged them for centuries we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up by one more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth. In this lies safety for our settlers and the soldiers who are under incompetent commands. Otherwise, we may expect future years to be as full of trouble with the redskins as those have been in the past. </blockquote>In [[Martin Luther King Jr.]]'s book on [[Civil and political rights|civil rights]], ''[[Why We Can't Wait]]'', he wrote:<ref name="kingnatspeech">{{cite web |last1=Rickert |first1=Levi |title=Dr. Martin Luther King Jr: Our Nation was Born in Genocide |url=https://nativenewsonline.net/currents/dr-martin-luther-king-jr-nation-born-genocide/ |website=Native News Online |publisher=Native News Online |access-date=January 9, 2021 |date=January 16, 2017 |archive-date=November 26, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181126092832/https://nativenewsonline.net/currents/dr-martin-luther-king-jr-nation-born-genocide/ |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Reflection today: "Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrin...|url=https://nacc.yalecollege.yale.edu/reflection-today-our-nation-was-born-genocide-when-it-embraced-doctrin|access-date=June 3, 2020|agency=Yale University|archive-date=June 3, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200603175817/https://nacc.yalecollege.yale.edu/reflection-today-our-nation-was-born-genocide-when-it-embraced-doctrin|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="kingcreek">{{cite web |last1=Bender |first1=Albert |title=Dr. King spoke out against the genocide of Native Americans |url=http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/dr-king-spoke-out-against-the-genocide-of-native-americans/ |website=People's World |access-date=November 25, 2018 |date=February 13, 2014}}</ref> <blockquote>Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race. Even before there were large numbers of Negroes on our shores, the scar of racial hatred had already disfigured colonial society. From the sixteenth century forward, blood flowed in battles over racial supremacy. We are perhaps the only nation which tried as a matter of national policy to wipe out its indigenous population. Moreover, we elevated that tragic experience into a noble crusade. Indeed, even today we have not permitted ourselves to reject or to feel remorse for this shameful episode. Our literature, our films, our drama, our folklore all exalt it.</blockquote> King was an active supporter of the [[Red Power movement|Native American rights movement]], which he drew parallels with his own leadership of the [[civil rights movement]].<ref name="kingcreek"/> Both movements aimed to overturn dehumanizing attitudes held by members of the public at large against them.<ref>{{citation|last=Johansen|first=Bruce E.|title=Encyclopedia of the American Indian Movement|year=2013|publisher=[[ABC-CLIO]]|isbn=978-1-4408-0318-5|at="Brando, Marlon" (pp. 60–63); "Littlefeather, Sacheen" (pp. 176–178)}}</ref> == Causes and facilitating factors == [[File:Slave Auction Ad.jpg|right|thumb|Reproduction of a handbill advertising a slave auction, in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1769]] Several lines of psychological research relate to the concept of dehumanization. Infrahumanization suggests that individuals think of and treat [[Outgroup (sociology)|outgroup]] members as "less human" and more like animals;<ref name="Leyens, JPh, 2000" /> while Austrian ethnologist [[Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt]] uses the term ''pseudo-speciation'', a term that he borrowed from the psychoanalyst [[Erik Erikson]], to imply that the dehumanized person or persons are regarded as not members of the human species.<ref name="eibl">{{cite book | title=The Biology of Peace and War: Men, Animals and Aggression | publisher=New York Viking Press | author=Eibl-Eibisfeldt, Irenäus | year=1979}}</ref> Specifically, individuals associate secondary emotions (which are seen as uniquely human) more with the ingroup than with the outgroup. Primary emotions (those experienced by all sentient beings, whether human or other animals) are found to be more associated with the outgroup.<ref name="Leyens, JPh, 2000" /> Dehumanization is intrinsically connected with violence.{{citation needed|date=July 2016}} Often, one cannot do serious injury to another without first dehumanizing him or her in one's mind (as a form of [[Rationalization (psychology)|rationalization]].){{citation needed|date=July 2016}} Military training is, among other things, systematic desensitization and dehumanization of the enemy, and servicemen and women may find it psychologically necessary to refer to the enemy as an animal or other non-human beings. Lt. Col. [[Dave Grossman (author)|Dave Grossman]] has shown that it would be difficult without such desensitization, if not impossible, to kill another human, even in combat or under threat to their own lives.<ref name="grossman">{{cite book | title=On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society | publisher=[[Back Bay Books]] | author=Grossman, Dave Lt. Col. | year=1996 | isbn=978-0-316-33000-8}}</ref> [[File:Ota Benga at Bronx Zoo.jpg|thumb|left|upright|[[Ota Benga]], a human exhibit in [[Bronx Zoo]], 1906]] According to Daniel Bar-Tal, delegitimization is the "categorization of groups into extreme negative social categories which are excluded from human groups that are considered as acting within the limits of acceptable norms and values".<ref name="Bar-Tal, D, 1989" /> Moral exclusion occurs when outgroups are subject to a different set of moral values, rules, and fairness than are used in social relations with ingroup members.<ref name="Opotow, S., 1990" /> When individuals dehumanize others, they no longer experience distress when they treat them poorly. Moral exclusion is used to explain extreme behaviors like [[genocide]], harsh [[Immigration policy|immigration policies]], and [[eugenics]], but it can also happen on a more regular, everyday discriminatory level. In laboratory studies, people who are portrayed as lacking human qualities are treated in a particularly harsh and violent manner.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bandura|first1=Albert|title=Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency|journal=Journal of Moral Education|volume=31|issue=2|year=2002|pages=101–119|url=http://historicalunderbelly.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/bandura_moraldisengagement1.pdf|doi=10.1080/0305724022014322|citeseerx=10.1.1.473.2026|s2cid=146449693|access-date=2014-11-07|archive-date=2014-12-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141220205339/http://historicalunderbelly.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/bandura_moraldisengagement1.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bandura|first1=Albert|last2=Barbaranelli|first2=Claudio|last3=Caprara|first3=Gian Vittorio|last4=Pastorelli|first4=Concetta|title=Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency.|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=71|issue=2|year=1996|pages=364–374|url=http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/Bandura1996JPSP.pdf|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364|citeseerx=10.1.1.458.572|access-date=2014-11-07|archive-date=2014-11-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141107083223/http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/Bandura1996JPSP.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bandura|first1=Albert|last2=Underwood|first2=Bill|last3=Fromson|first3=Michael E|title=Disinhibition of aggression through diffusion of responsibility and dehumanization of victims|journal=Journal of Research in Personality|volume=9|issue=4|year=1975|pages=253–269|url=http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/Bandura1975.pdf|doi=10.1016/0092-6566(75)90001-X|access-date=2014-11-07|archive-date=2014-11-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141107083127/http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/Bandura1975.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>{{clarify|date=September 2020|problem=This seems like a sweeping statement. Is this the case for ALL laboratory studies, a majority of those published over a certain period, or just a few handpicked ones?}} Dehumanized perception occurs when a subject experiences low frequencies of activation within their [[social cognition]] [[neural network]].<ref>{{Cite journal|title = Meeting of minds: the medial frontal cortex and social cognition|journal = Nature Reviews. Neuroscience|date = 2006-04-01|issn = 1471-003X|pmid = 16552413|pages = 268–277|volume = 7|issue = 4|doi = 10.1038/nrn1884|first1 = David M.|last1 = Amodio|first2 = Chris D.|last2 = Frith|author-link2=Chris Frith|s2cid = 7669363}}</ref> This includes areas of neural networking such as the [[superior temporal sulcus]] (STS) and the [[medial prefrontal cortex]] (mPFC).<ref>{{Cite journal|title = Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: neuroimaging responses to extreme out-groups|journal = Psychological Science|date = 2006-10-01|issn = 0956-7976|pmid = 17100784|pages = 847–853|volume = 17|issue = 10|doi = 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01793.x|first1 = Lasana T.|last1 = Harris|first2 = Susan T.|last2 = Fiske|s2cid = 8466947}}</ref> A 2001 study by psychologists [[Chris Frith|Chris]] and [[Uta Frith]] suggests that the criticality of social interaction within a neural network has tendencies for subjects to dehumanize those seen as disgust-inducing, leading to social disengagement.<ref>{{Cite journal|title = Social cognition in humans|journal = Current Biology|date = 2007-08-21|issn = 0960-9822|pmid = 17714666|pages = R724–732|volume = 17|issue = 16|doi = 10.1016/j.cub.2007.05.068|first1 = Chris D.|last1 = Frith|first2 = Uta|last2 = Frith|author-link1=Chris Frith|author-link2=Uta Frith|s2cid = 1145094|doi-access = free}}</ref> Tasks involving social cognition typically activate the neural network responsible for subjective projections of disgust-inducing perceptions and patterns of dehumanization. "Besides manipulations of target persons, manipulations of social goals validate this prediction: Inferring preference, a mental-state inference, significantly increases mPFC and STS activity to these otherwise dehumanized targets."{{whose quote|date=September 2020|Need to state inline whose quote.}}<ref>{{Cite journal|title = Social groups that elicit disgust are differentially processed in mPFC|journal = [[Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience]]|date = 2007-03-01|issn = 1749-5024|pmc = 2555430|pmid = 18985118|pages = 45–51|volume = 2|issue = 1|doi = 10.1093/scan/nsl037|first1 = Lasana T.|last1 = Harris|first2 = Susan T.|last2 = Fiske}}</ref> A 2007 study by Harris, McClure, van den Bos, [[Jonathan D. Cohen|Cohen]] and Fiske suggests a subject's mental reliability towards dehumanizing social cognition due to decreased neural activity towards the projected target, replicating across stimuli and contexts.{{incomprehensible inline|date=September 2020}}<ref>{{Cite journal|title = Regions of the MPFC differentially tuned to social and nonsocial affective evaluation|journal = Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience|date = 2007-12-01|issn = 1530-7026|pmid = 18189004|pages = 309–316|volume = 7|issue = 4|first1 = Lasana T.|last1 = Harris|first2 = Samuel M.|last2 = McClure|first3 = Wouter|last3 = van den Bos|first4 = Jonathan D.|last4 = Cohen|author-link4=Jonathan D. Cohen|first5 = Susan T.|last5 = Fiske|doi=10.3758/cabn.7.4.309|doi-access = free}}</ref> While [[social distance]] from the outgroup target is a necessary condition for dehumanization, some research suggests that this alone is insufficient. Psychological research has identified high status, power, and social connection as additional factors. Members of high-status groups more often associate humanity with the ingroup than the outgroup, while members of low-status groups exhibit no differences in associations with humanity. Thus, having a high status makes one more likely to dehumanize others.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Capozza|first1=D.|last2=Andrighetto|first2=L.|last3=Di Bernardo|first3=G. A.|last4=Falvo|first4=R.|title=Does status affect intergroup perceptions of humanity?|journal=Group Processes & Intergroup Relations|volume=15|issue=3|year=2011|pages=363–377|doi=10.1177/1368430211426733|s2cid=145639435}}</ref> Low-status groups are more associated with human nature traits (e.g., warmth, emotionalism) than uniquely human characteristics, implying that they are closer to animals than humans because these traits are typical of humans but can be seen in other species.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Loughnan|first1=S.|last2=Haslam|first2=N.|last3=Kashima|first3=Y.|title=Understanding the Relationship between Attribute-Based and Metaphor-Based Dehumanization|journal=Group Processes & Intergroup Relations|volume=12|issue=6|year=2009|pages=747–762|doi=10.1177/1368430209347726|s2cid=144232224}}</ref> In addition, another line of work found that individuals in a position of power were more likely to objectify their subordinates, treating them as a means to one's end rather than focusing on their essentially human qualities.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Gruenfeld|first1=Deborah H.|last2=Inesi|first2=M. Ena|last3=Magee|first3=Joe C.|last4=Galinsky|first4=Adam D.|title=Power and the objectification of social targets.|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=95|issue=1|year=2008|pages=111–127|pmid=18605855|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.111}}</ref> Finally, [[social connection]]—thinking about a close other or being in the actual presence of a close other—enables dehumanization by reducing the attribution of human mental states, increasing support for treating targets like animals, and increasing willingness to endorse harsh [[interrogation tactics]].<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Waytz|first1=Adam|last2=Epley|first2=Nicholas|title=Social connection enables dehumanization|journal=Journal of Experimental Social Psychology|volume=48|issue=1|year=2012|pages=70–76|doi=10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.012}}</ref> This is counterintuitive because social connection has documented personal health and well-being benefits but appears to impair [[intergroup relations]]. Neuroimaging studies have discovered that the medial prefrontal cortex—a brain region distinctively involved in attributing mental states to others—shows diminished activation to extremely dehumanized targets (i.e., those rated, according to the [[stereotype content model]], as low-warmth and low-competence, such as drug addicts or homeless people).<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Harris |first1=L. T. |last2=Fiske |first2=S. T. |title=Dehumanizing the Lowest of the Low: Neuroimaging Responses to Extreme Out-Groups |journal=Psychological Science |volume=17 |issue=10 |year=2006 |pages=847–853 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01793.x |pmid=17100784 |s2cid=8466947 |url=http://www.cdnresearch.net/pubs/others/Harris_Fiske_Neurodisgust.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140513232135/http://www.cdnresearch.net/pubs/others/Harris_Fiske_Neurodisgust.pdf |archive-date=2014-05-13 }}</ref><ref> {{cite journal|author1=Harris, L. T. |author2=Fiske, S. T. |year=2007|title=Social groups that elicit disgust are differentially processed in mPFC|journal=[[Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience (journal)|Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience]]|volume=2|issue=1|pages= 45–51|pmc=2555430|doi=10.1093/scan/nsl037|pmid=18985118}}</ref> === Race and ethnicity === [[File:Alaska Death Trap.jpg|thumb|upright|US government propaganda poster from WWII featuring a Japanese soldier depicted as a rat]] Dehumanization often occurs as a result of intergroup conflict. Ethnic and racial others are often represented as animals in popular culture and scholarship. There is evidence that this representation persists in the American context with African Americans implicitly associated with apes. To the extent that an individual has this dehumanizing implicit association, they are more likely to support violence against African Americans (e.g., jury decisions to execute defendants).<ref name="Goff, 2008">{{cite journal|last1=Goff|first1=Phillip Atiba|last2=Eberhardt|first2=Jennifer L.|last3=Williams|first3=Melissa J.|last4=Jackson|first4=Matthew Christian|title=Not yet human: Implicit knowledge, historical dehumanization, and contemporary consequences.|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=94|issue=2|year=2008|pages=292–306|pmid=18211178|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.292}}</ref> Historically, dehumanization is frequently connected to genocidal conflicts in that ideologies before and during the conflict depict victims as subhuman (e.g., rodents).<ref name="Haslam, N, 2006" /> Immigrants may also be dehumanized in this manner.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=O'Brien|first1=Gerald|title=Indigestible Food, Conquering Hordes, and Waste Materials: Metaphors of Immigrants and the Early Immigration Restriction Debate in the United States|journal=Metaphor and Symbol|volume=18|issue=1|year=2003|pages=33–47|url=http://www.uky.edu/~addesa01/documents/IndigestibleFood.pdf|doi=10.1207/S15327868MS1801_3|s2cid=143579187|access-date=2014-11-07|archive-date=2014-11-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141107081941/http://www.uky.edu/~addesa01/documents/IndigestibleFood.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> In 1901, the [[Federation of Australia|six Australian colonies assented to federation]], creating the modern nation state of [[Australia]] and [[Government of Australia|its government]]. Section&nbsp;51 (xxvi) excluded [[Aboriginal Australians|Aboriginals]] from the groups protected by special laws, and section&nbsp;127 excluded Aboriginals from population counts. The ''[[Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902]]'' categorically denied Aboriginals the right to vote. Indigenous Australians were not allowed the social security benefits (e.g., aged pensions and maternity allowances) which were provided to others. Aboriginals in rural areas were discriminated against and controlled as to where and how they could marry, work, live, and their movements.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/auscurric/sampleunit/1967referendum/aboutreferendum.pdf|title=About the 1967 Referendum|date=2012|website=Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority|access-date=7 May 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160418143228/http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/auscurric/sampleunit/1967referendum/aboutreferendum.pdf|archive-date=18 April 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref> ===Language=== Dehumanization and dehumanized perception can occur as a result of the language used to describe groups of people. Words such as migrant, immigrant, and expatriate are assigned to foreigners based on their social status and wealth, rather than ability, achievements, or political alignment. Expatriate is a word to describe the privileged, often [[Light skin|light-skinned]] people newly residing in an area and has connotations that suggest ability, wealth, and trust. Meanwhile, the word immigrant is used to describe people coming to a new location to reside and infers a much less-desirable meaning.<ref>{{Cite news|title = Why are white people expats when the rest of us are immigrants?|url = https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/mar/13/white-people-expats-immigrants-migration|newspaper = The Guardian|access-date = 2015-12-08|first = Mawuna Remarque|last = Koutonin|date = 2015-03-13|archive-date = 2019-09-09|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190909012230/https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/mar/13/white-people-expats-immigrants-migration|url-status = live}}</ref> The word "immigrant" is sometimes paired with "illegal", which harbors a profoundly derogatory connotation. Misuse of these terms—they are often used inaccurately—to describe the other, can alter the perception of a group as a whole in a negative way. Ryan Eller, the executive director of the immigrant advocacy group, [[Define American]], expressed the problem this way:<ref name="Lee2015">{{cite news |author1=Esther Yu Hsi Lee |title=The Dehumanizing History Of The Words We've Used To Describe Immigrants |url=https://archive.thinkprogress.org/the-dehumanizing-history-of-the-words-weve-used-to-describe-immigrants-18dd39c90459/ |access-date=3 July 2021 |work=ThinkProgress |date=13 August 2015}}</ref> {{quote|It's not just because it's derogatory, but because it's factually incorrect. Most of the time when we hear [illegal immigrant] used, most of the time, the shorter version 'illegals' is being used as a noun, which implies that a human being is perpetually illegal. There is no other classification that I'm aware of where the individual is being rendered as unlawful as opposed to those individuals' actions.}} A series of language examinations found a direct relation between homophobic epithets and social cognitive distancing towards a group of homosexuals, a form of dehumanization. These epithets (e.g., ''faggot'') were thought to function as dehumanizing labels because they tended to act as markers of deviance. One pair of studies found that subjects were more likely to associate malignant language with homosexuals, and that such language associations increased the physical distancing between the subject and the homosexual. This indicated that the malignant language could encourage dehumanization, cognitive and physical distancing in ways that other forms of malignant language do not.<ref>{{Cite journal|title = Not "just words": Exposure to homophobic epithets leads to dehumanizing and physical distancing from gay men|journal = European Journal of Social Psychology|volume = 46|issue = 2|date = 2015-01-01|issn = 1099-0992|pages = 237–248|doi = 10.1002/ejsp.2148|first1 = Fabio|last1 = Fasoli|first2 = Maria Paola|last2 = Paladino|first3 = Andrea|last3 = Carnaghi|first4 = Jolanda|last4 = Jetten|first5 = Brock|last5 = Bastian|first6 = Paul G.|last6 = Bain|hdl = 10071/12705|url = https://eprints.qut.edu.au/90602/11/EJSP_dehumanization_uncorrected.pdf|access-date = 2019-12-09|archive-date = 2020-05-09|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200509131738/https://eprints.qut.edu.au/90602/11/EJSP_dehumanization_uncorrected.pdf|url-status = live|hdl-access = free}}</ref> === Human races === In the US, African Americans were dehumanized by being classified as non-human primates. The US Constitution held that enslaved Africans would be counted as [[Three-Fifths Compromise|three-fifths]] of a free person for purposes of federal representation and direct taxes.<ref>{{cite web |title=Understanding the three-fifths compromise |url=https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/understanding-the-three-fifths-compromise/ |website=Constitutional Accountability Center |access-date=27 October 2022 |language=en}}</ref> A California police officer who was also involved in the [[Rodney King]] beating described a dispute between an American Black couple as "something right out of ''Gorillas in the Mist''".<ref>{{Cite news|last=Ap|date=1991-06-12|title=Judge Says Remarks on 'Gorillas' May Be Cited in Trial on Beating|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/12/us/judge-says-remarks-on-gorillas-may-be-cited-in-trial-on-beating.html|access-date=2020-08-24|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=2017-10-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171009155016/http://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/12/us/judge-says-remarks-on-gorillas-may-be-cited-in-trial-on-beating.html|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Franz Boas]] and [[Charles Darwin]] hypothesized that there might be an evolutionary process among primates. Monkeys and apes were least evolved, then savage and deformed anthropoids, which referred to people of African ancestry, to Caucasians as most developed.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Goof|first1=Phillip|last2=Eberhardt|first2=Jennifer|last3=Williams|first3=Melissa|last4=Jackson|first4=Matthew|date=2008|title=Not yet human: Implicit knowledge, historical dehumanization, and contemporary consequences|url=https://web.stanford.edu/~eberhard/downloads/2008-NotYetHuman.pdf|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=94|issue=2|pages=292–306|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.292|pmid=18211178|access-date=7 May 2016|archive-date=17 October 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161017170652/https://web.stanford.edu/~eberhard/downloads/2008-NotYetHuman.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> [[File:Jean-Léon Gérôme 004.jpg|thumb|Depiction of a slave auction in Ancient Rome. Anyone not a Roman citizen was subject to enslavement and was considered private property.]] === Property takeover === [[File:Mateo Zapata.jpg|thumb|The [[Spanish Inquisition]] would seize the property of those accused of [[heresy]] and use the profits to fund the accused's imprisonment, even before trial.]] Property scholars define dehumanization as “the failure to recognize an individual’s or group’s humanity.”<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Atuahene|first=Bernadette|date=2016|title=Dignity Takings and Dignity Restoration: Creating a New Theoretical Framework for Understanding Involuntary Property Loss and the Remedies Required|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/lsi.12249|journal=Law & Social Inquiry|language=en|volume=41|issue=4|pages=801|doi=10.1111/lsi.12249|s2cid=151377162|issn=1747-4469}}</ref> Dehumanization often occurs alongside property confiscation. When a property takeover is coupled with dehumanization, the result is a [[dignity taking]].<ref name=":0" /> There are several examples of dignity takings involving dehumanization. From its founding, the United States repeatedly engaged in dignity takings from Native American populations, taking indigenous land in an “undeniably horrific, violent, and tragic record” of genocide and ethnocide.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Richland|first=Justin B.|date=2016|title=Dignity as (Self-)Determination: Hopi Sovereignty in the Face of US Dispossessions|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/lsi.12191|journal=Law & Social Inquiry|language=en|volume=41|issue=4|pages=921|doi=10.1111/lsi.12191|s2cid=148319987|issn=1747-4469}}</ref> As recently as 2013, the degradation of a mountain sacred to the Hopi people—by spraying its peak potwith artificial snow made from wastewater—constituted another dignity taking by the U.S. Forest Service.<ref name=":1" /> The Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 also constituted a dignity taking involving dehumanization.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Brophy|first=Alfred L.|date=2016|title=When More than Property Is Lost: The Dignity Losses and Restoration of the Tulsa Riot of 1921|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-social-inquiry/article/when-more-than-property-is-lost-the-dignity-losses-and-restoration-of-the-tulsa-riot-of-1921/AD16D6C5F782963AB4E68D1116431156|journal=Law & Social Inquiry|language=en|volume=41|issue=4|pages=824–832|doi=10.1111/lsi.12205|s2cid=147798196|issn=0897-6546}}</ref> White rioters dehumanized African Americans by attacking, looting, and destroying homes and businesses in Greenwood, a predominantly Black neighborhood known as “Black Wall Street.”<ref name=":2" /> During the Holocaust, mass genocide—a severe form of dehumanization—accompanied the destruction and taking of Jewish property.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last=Veraart|first=Wouter|date=2016-06-29|title=Two Rounds of Postwar Restitution and Dignity Restoration in the Netherlands and in France|url=https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/two-rounds-of-postwar-restitution-and-dignity-restoration-in-the-|journal=Law & Social Inquiry|language=English|volume=41|issue=4|pages=956–972|doi=10.1111/lsi.12212|s2cid=147735669|issn=1747-4469}}</ref> This constituted a dignity taking.<ref name=":3" /> Undocumented workers in the United States have also been subject to dehumanizing dignity takings when employers treat them as machines instead of people to justify dangerous working conditions.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last1=Rathod|first1=Jayesh|last2=Nadas|first2=Rachel|date=2017-01-01|title=Damaged Bodies, Damaged Lives: Immigrant Worker Injuries as Dignity Takings|url=https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev/1067|journal=Chicago-Kent Law Review|volume=92|issue=3}}</ref> When harsh conditions lead to bodily injury or death, the property destroyed is the physical body.<ref name=":4" /> === Media-driven dehumanization === The [[propaganda model]] of [[Edward S. Herman]] and [[Noam Chomsky]] argues that corporate media are able to carry out large-scale, successful dehumanization campaigns when they promote the goals (profit-making) that the corporations are contractually obliged to maximize.<ref name="Herman, S (1988)">Herman, Edward S., and Noam Chomsky. (1988). ''[[Manufacturing Consent]]: the Political Economy of the Mass Media''. New York: Pantheon. Page xli</ref><ref>Thomas Ferguson. (1987). ''Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Politics''</ref> [[State media]] are also capable of carrying out dehumanization campaigns, whether in democracies or dictatorships, which are pervasive enough that the population cannot avoid the dehumanizing [[meme]]s.<ref name="Herman, S (1988)" /> === Non-state actors === Non-state actors—terrorists in particular—have also resorted to dehumanization to further their cause. The 1960s terrorist group [[Weather Underground]] had advocated violence against any authority figure and used the "police are pigs" meme to convince members that they were not harming human beings but merely killing wild animals. Likewise, rhetoric statements such as "terrorists are just scum", is an act of dehumanization.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Graham|first1=Stephen|title=Cities and the 'War on Terror'|journal=International Journal of Urban and Regional Research|volume=30|issue=2|year=2006|pages=255–276|doi=10.1111/j.1468-2427.2006.00665.x}}</ref> == In science, medicine, and technology == [[File:Child survivors of Auschwitz.jpeg|thumb|Jewish twins kept alive in [[Auschwitz]] for use in [[Josef Mengele]]'s medical experiments]] Relatively recent history has seen the relationship between dehumanization and science result in unethical scientific research. The [[Tuskegee syphilis experiment]], [[Unit 731]], and [[Nazi human experimentation]] on Jewish people are three such examples. In the former, African Americans with syphilis were recruited to participate in a study about the course of the disease. Even when treatment and a cure were eventually developed, they were withheld from the African-American participants so that researchers could continue their study. Similarly, Nazi scientists during the Holocaust conducted horrific experiments on Jewish people and [[Shiro Ishii]]'s Unit 731 also did so to Chinese, Russian, Mongolian, American, and other nationalities held captive. Both were justified in the name of research and progress, which is indicative of the far-reaching effects that the culture of dehumanization had upon this society. When this research came to light, efforts were made to protect future research participants, and currently, [[institutional review board]]s exist to safeguard individuals from being exploited by scientists. In a medical context, some dehumanizing practices have become more acceptable. While the dissection of human cadavers was seen as dehumanizing in the [[Dark Ages (historiography)|Dark Ages]] (see [[history of anatomy]]), the value of dissections as a training aid is such that they are now more widely accepted. Dehumanization has been associated with modern medicine generally and has explicitly been suggested as a coping mechanism for doctors who work with patients at the end of life.<ref name="Haslam, N, 2006" /><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Schulman-Green|first1=Dena|title=Coping mechanisms of physicians who routinely work with dying patients|journal=OMEGA: Journal of Death and Dying|volume=47|issue=3|year=2003|pages=253–264|doi=10.2190/950H-U076-T5JB-X6HN|s2cid=71233667}}</ref> Researchers have identified six potential causes of dehumanization in medicine: deindividuating practices, impaired patient agency, dissimilarity (causes which do not facilitate the delivery of medical treatment), mechanization, empathy reduction, and moral disengagement (which could be argued to facilitate the delivery of medical treatment).<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Haque|first1=O. S.|last2=Waytz|first2=A.|s2cid=1670448|title=Dehumanization in Medicine: Causes, Solutions, and Functions|journal=Perspectives on Psychological Science|volume=7|issue=2|year=2012|pages=176–186|doi=10.1177/1745691611429706|pmid=26168442}}</ref> In some US states, legislation requires that a woman view ultrasound images of her fetus before having an abortion. Critics of the law argue that merely seeing an image of the fetus humanizes it and biases women against abortion.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Sanger | first1 = C | year = 2008 | title = Seeing and believing: Mandatory ultrasound and the path to a protected choice | journal = [[UCLA Law Review]] | volume = 56 | pages = 351–408 }}</ref> Similarly, a recent study showed that subtle humanization of medical patients appears to improve care for these patients. Radiologists evaluating X-rays reported more details to patients and expressed more empathy when a photo of the patient's face accompanied the X-rays.<ref>Turner, Y., & Hadas-Halpern, I. (2008, December 3). [http://archive.rsna.org/2008/6008880.html "The effects of including a patient's photograph to the radiographic examination"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141107070858/http://archive.rsna.org/2008/6008880.html |date=2014-11-07 }}. Paper presented at [[Radiological Society of North America]], Chicago, IL.</ref> It appears that the inclusion of the photos counteracts the dehumanization of the medical process. Dehumanization has applications outside traditional social contexts. [[Anthropomorphism]] (i.e., perceiving mental and physical capacities that reflect humans in nonhuman entities) is the inverse of dehumanization.<!--, which occurs when characteristics that apply to humans are denied to other humans-->.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Waytz|first1=A.|last2=Epley|first2=N.|last3=Cacioppo|first3=J. T.|title=Social Cognition Unbound: Insights Into Anthropomorphism and Dehumanization|journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science|volume=19|issue=1|year=2010|pages=58–62|url=http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/cd/19_1_inpress/Waytz_final.pdf|doi=10.1177/0963721409359302|pmid=24839358|pmc=4020342|access-date=2014-11-07|archive-date=2015-09-24|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924083220/http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/cd/19_1_inpress/Waytz_final.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> Waytz, Epley, and Cacioppo suggest that the inverse of the factors that facilitate dehumanization (e.g., high status, power, and social connection) should promote anthropomorphism. That is, a low status, socially disconnected person without power should be more likely to attribute human qualities to pets or inanimate objects than a high-status, high-power, socially connected person. Researchers have found that engaging in [[Violence and video games|violent video game play]] diminishes perceptions of both one's own humanity and the humanity of the players who are targets of the game violence.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bastian|first1=Brock|last2=Jetten|first2=Jolanda|last3=Radke|first3=Helena R.M.|title=Cyber-dehumanization: Violent video game play diminishes our humanity|journal=Journal of Experimental Social Psychology|volume=48|issue=2|year=2012|pages=486–491|doi=10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.009}}</ref> While the players are dehumanized, the video game characters are often anthropomorphized. Dehumanization has occurred historically under the pretense of "progress in the name of science". During the [[Louisiana Purchase Exposition|St. Louis World's fair in 1904]], human zoos exhibited several natives from independent tribes worldwide, most notably a young Congolese man, [[Ota Benga]]. Benga's imprisonment was put on display as a public service showcasing "a degraded and degenerate race". During this period, religion was still the driving force behind many political and scientific activities. Because of this, eugenics was widely supported among the most notable US scientific communities, political figures, and industrial elites. After relocating to New York in 1906, public outcry led to the permanent ban and closure of human zoos in the United States.<ref>{{Cite news|title = The man who was caged in a zoo {{!}} Pamela Newkirk|url = https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/03/the-man-who-was-caged-in-a-zoo|newspaper = The Guardian|access-date = 2015-12-08|first = Pamela|last = Newkirk|date = 2015-06-03|archive-date = 2015-12-08|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20151208100623/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/03/the-man-who-was-caged-in-a-zoo|url-status = live}}</ref> == In art == [[Francisco Goya]], famed Spanish painter and printmaker of the romantic period, often depicted subjectivity involving the atrocities of war and brutal violence conveying the process of dehumanization. In the romantic period of painting, martyrdom art was most often a means of deifying the oppressed and tormented, and it was common for Goya to depict evil personalities performing these unjust horrible acts. But it was revolutionary the way the painter broke this convention by dehumanizing these martyr figures. "...one would not know whom the painting depicts, so determinedly has Goya reduced his subjects from martyrs to meat".<ref>{{Cite book|title = The Death and Afterlife of the North American Martyrs|last = Anderson|first = Emma|publisher = Harvard University Press|year = 2013|isbn = 9780674726161|location = United States|page = 91}}</ref> == See also == {{Portal|Psychology}} {{columns-list|colwidth=22em| * [[American mutilation of Japanese war dead]] * [[Depersonalization]] * [[Human zoo]] * [[Infrahumanisation]] * [[Life unworthy of life]] * [[Moral disengagement]] * [[Nonperson]] * [[Perceived psychological contract violation]] * [[Perceived organizational support]] * [[Second-class citizen]] * [[Social defeat]] * [[Untermensch]] }} == References == {{reflist|30em}} == External links == * https://web.archive.org/web/20100929000211/http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Dehumanization {{abuse}} {{Bullying}} {{Discrimination}} [[Category:Abuse]] [[Category:Bullying]] [[Category:Genocide]] [[Category:Harassment]] [[Category:Interpersonal relationships]] [[Category:Moral psychology]] [[Category:Prejudice and discrimination]] [[Category:Social psychology concepts]] [[Category:Social inequality]] [[Category:Terrorism tactics]] [[Category:Violence]]'