Dehumanization is a concept by which two or more parties view each other as less of human beings and thereby do not deserve to be treated with moral consideration. The opponents tend to view each other as though the other party to not possess human rights. A good example is the Rwandan genocide. Dehumanization is brought about by unbearable differences that lead to major conflicts that make it difficult for the opponents to recognize that they all belong to the same species. The parties experience intense hatred and alienation and this widens the psychological distance between them. Eventually, this results to moral exclusion where the excluded group is viewed as evil and inferior.
In the normal human concept, all human beings possess some kind of basic human rights that should not be violated. Such include that innocent people should not be murdered, tortured or raped, all people should be treated with respect, dignity and in a fairly and justly manner in accordance to the international law suggests. The rule of law is clear in such a way that it suggests that even in times of war, innocent population from the opponent party must be protected. Human beings possess the right to freedom and especially to make autonomous decisions that affect their lives. These rules include both the innocent and the guilty. International law makes it clear that even the guilty individuals must be subjected to a fair trial and must not face unusual punishment.
In the dehumanization concept, individuals viewed as immoral lack the pleasure of enjoying their right to basic needs and fair treatment. Any ill treatment that befalls on them is thereby morally justified by the opponent. Treatment given to such individuals would, however, be not acceptable in one’s moral community. Criteria used to dehumanize include skin color, ideology and cognitive capacity. One of the major reasons why an opponent would dehumanize a certain party is due to perception of that community being a threat to either their well-being or interfering with their cultural beliefs and values.
The psychology of dehumanization follows a concept-like process whereby the opponent develops the image of an enemy to the other party. The two parties begin to show feelings of anger, distrust and fear thus paving way to a serious conflict. The parties begin to perceive each other as dangerous, deficient of moral virtues as well as evil enemy- the concept of demonizing (Kaufmann, 15). However the opposing group is viewed with a negative stereotype as evil compared to one’s group. The opposed group begins to compare their distinctive attributes and virtues of one’s own group with the ‘outside’ group. Most cases, this most affect the leaders of the opposing group while the ordinary individuals are viewed as neutral and most cases as innocent.
In this case, communication between the two groups become difficult as either of their suggestions are either ignored or becomes difficult to see where the reasoning is coming from. Negative actions from the opponent are used as an expression of their motives, traits or evil nature. This makes it difficult for reconciliation or finding a common ground because this evil image tends to, in most cases, resist change. Evil people intensify and perpetuate conflict for their selfish gains. This kind of conflict is branded as a war between good and evil. This justifies their motives and their position become more rigid. The opponent set new goals to secure their own victory or face their defeat. They decide to punish or destroy the other group initializing war where in some cases more militant leadership comes into power.
According to Erich Fromm, “man is not a blank sheet of paper on which culture can write its text” (Fromm, 23). This suggests that human beings are self-made. They tend to adapt differently when subjected to external conditions. Therefore, the issue of dehumanization comes in as a way human beings reacting and adapting to their environment. If a man adapted himself to external conditions auto plastically, by changing his own nature, like an animal, it would make them fit to only few sets of conditions to which they adapted to.
Human evolution is rooted in man’s adaptability and in certain indestructible qualities of his nature which compel him never to cease his search for conditions better adjusted to his intrinsic needs. This means that, dehumanization is as a result of a group of people that is willing to go to any length to protect what they already believe in rather than finding a common ground with the opponent group. It is a proof of a group of people that are either frightened by new ideas or are threatened by the perceived power that the opponent may possess. These kind of human beings are rigid are resistant to any kind of change.
“There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much destructive feeling as moral indignation which permits envy or hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue” (Fromm,16). This is a wake-up call made by Erich Fromm to the human kind. Once they realize the major cause of dehumanization, perhaps it will be easier to combat the epidemic. It is always advisable for human kind to embrace diversity, to believe that we are all born and raised in different environment and therefore have developed different cultural beliefs, leadership methods and various ways of making a livelihood (Doukhan, 16).
It has become an international law that restrict people against acts of dehumanization especially discrimination based on any factor, be it gender, race or tribe. This has followed the Fromm’s rule that, “If faith cannot be reconciled with rational thinking, it has to be eliminated as an anachronistic remnant of earlier stages of culture and replaced by science dealing with facts and theories which are intelligible and can be validated.” (Fromm, 72). This suggests that every individual must adhere to the rule of international law and failure to that will be liable for their actions.
Perhaps it would be wise to have as many philosophers who would be able to strengthen the voice of human conscience. By doing this, the human nature will be put in a state of awareness in such a way that they will recognize what is good and bad and would differentiate between the two. It will enable human beings to identify whether their behavior is good enough for the society especially in this period of evolution. This will enable and enhance transformation in the universe and will help mould a common ground especially when it comes to critical matters that concerns human rights. Like Erich Fromm says, “May be a voice crying in the wilderness but only if that voice remains lively and uncompromising, it is possible to transform the desert into fertile land” (Fromm, 84).
I tend to agree with Erich Fromm when he suggests that the cause of failure on the modern culture is not driven by self-interest of the individuals but individuals are rather not fully aware of the interests of their real self. They are not working towards fulfilling them but are rather working towards what is trending across the globe. This has influenced attitudes of many by an evident expression of a profound range of confusion and despair.
The judgement of human race has been corrupted by immorality and individuality. Judgement is the key factor in determining our actions. Whether these actions are valid determine the outcome of our feelings; whether we are happy or sad. Our mental health is based on the restfulness of our conscience on whether the society has embraced and accommodated our various differences in character. However, it should be noted that there is a limit to this behavior such that the governance in different state must regulate. This is where leadership and governance falls in place. Leaders should be role models and should carry forth a sense of diversity.
In conclusion, in Man for Himself, Erich Fromm shows us that human behavior cannot be understood without initially understanding the values and moral conflicts that confronts human kind. He makes it clear that human nature can be modified by posing ethical system rather than using revelations or traditions. Psychology cannot do away with issues arising from philosophy and ethics. Confidence in values is highly determined by a man’s capacity of his nature for goodness and productiveness. Human evolution is rooted in man’s adaptability and in certain indestructible qualities of his nature which compel him never to cease his search for conditions better adjusted to his intrinsic needs.
Work Cited
Doukhan, Abi. Emmanuel Lévinas: A Philosophy of Exile. New York: Continuum, 2012. Print.
Fromm, Erich. Man for Himself. Place of publication not identified: Routledge, 2014. Print.
Kaufmann, Paulus. Humiliation, Degradation, Dehumanization: Human Dignity Violated. Dordrecht: Springer, 2011. Internet resource.
