Less Than Human

1. Dehumanization is a specific psychological process: conceiving others as subhuman creatures.

Dehumanization isn’t a way of talking. It’s a way of thinking—a way of thinking that, sadly, comes all too easily to us.

More than just insults. Dehumanization is not merely using derogatory language or treating someone poorly. It is a fundamental shift in perception, where one genuinely believes that another group of people are not fully human beings, but rather creatures of a lower kind. This belief acts as a prerequisite for extreme violence and oppression.

Defining the concept. The author defines dehumanization as the act of regarding people as subhuman creatures rather than as human beings. This involves two key components: thinking of them in terms of what they lack (humanity) and thinking of them as creatures that are less than human. It is distinct from:

• Treating people as numbers or statistics (lack of individuality)
• Objectification (treating as things, like sex objects)
• Denigrating or judging as inferior humans
• Cruel or degrading treatment (behavior vs. thinking)

A psychological state. The core of dehumanization lies in the mind. It is an attitude, a way of thinking about others, that enables actions that would otherwise be unthinkable. This psychological state dissolves moral restraints and empowers individuals to commit atrocities.

2. This thinking relies on distinguishing outward appearance from a hidden, true "essence."

As I will explain in detail later on, dehumanization is the belief that some beings only appear human, but beneath the surface, where it really counts, they aren’t human at all.

Appearance vs. reality. Dehumanization is possible because humans intuitively distinguish between how something appears and what it truly is at its core, its "essence." Just as water is H2O regardless of its appearance, or a tiger is a tiger even if it lacks stereotypical stripes, humans are believed to have a hidden essence that defines their kind.

Intuitive essentialism. This distinction between appearance and essence is not just philosophical; it's a deeply ingrained psychological intuition. People spontaneously imagine that many things, especially living things, have an inner property that makes them what they are, regardless of superficial changes or appearances.

Counterfeit humans. This intuitive essentialism allows for the concept of beings that look human but lack the human essence – "counterfeit humans." This idea is common in fiction (Dracula, Terminator, zombies) and reflects our capacity to conceive of entities that are outwardly human but inwardly something else entirely, providing the cognitive basis for believing some people are "less than human."

3. Dehumanization is an ancient and widespread phenomenon, not limited to modern or Western cultures.

Dehumanization is neither uniquely European nor uniquely modern.

Deep historical roots. While often associated with modern atrocities like the Holocaust, the phenomenon of dehumanization is vastly more ancient and widespread. Examples can be found throughout history and across diverse cultures, including:

• Ancient Greeks viewing "barbarians" as natural slaves lacking full rationality.
• Medieval Islamic texts describing Jews transformed into apes and swine as divine punishment.
• Ancient Egyptians viewing foreigners as nonhuman and comparing teaching them language to training animals.
• Ancient Chinese labeling barbarian tribes with characters meaning "dog" or "insect."

Justifying brutality. From Aristotle's theory of natural slavery used to justify the enslavement of "barbarians," to the Spanish conquistadores debating whether Native Americans were fully human, dehumanization has consistently served to legitimize conquest, slavery, and violence by placing the "other" outside the sphere of human moral consideration.

Not just European. The idea that dehumanization is a modern European invention linked to universal human rights is a partial truth. While specific manifestations are culturally shaped, the underlying impulse is far more deeply intertwined with the human experience globally, appearing whenever groups seek to dominate or eliminate others.

4. The concept of "race" (or ethnorace) is a primary psychological vehicle for dehumanization.

Dehumanization feeds on racism; without racism, it probably couldn’t exist.

Race as a folk concept. While conventional racial categories lack scientific biological justification, the concept of "race" is a powerful folk-sociological notion. People intuitively carve humanity into distinct groups, or "ethnoraces," which they treat as natural kinds defined by a shared, heritable essence.

Essential differences. This imagined racial essence is believed to be an intrinsic, unalterable aspect of a person's identity, passed down through lineage (often conceived as "blood"). This explains why someone might be considered "black" despite looking "white" (like Janie or Mr. Oreo) – their essence is believed to be black regardless of appearance.

Ethnorace as target. Dehumanization targets these essentialized human kinds. First, a population is defined as a distinct ethnorace with a common essence. Second, this essence is then imagined to be a subhuman essence, transforming them in the mind from a different kind of human into a different species entirely, one that is less than human.

5. Dehumanization functions as a psychological lubricant, dissolving natural human inhibitions against killing and cruelty.

Dehumanization acts as a psychological lubricant, dissolving our inhibitions and inflaming our destructive passions.

Overcoming moral restraints. Humans possess natural inhibitions against harming fellow human beings, rooted in empathy and social bonding. However, these inhibitions can be selectively overridden, particularly in contexts of violence like war or genocide.

Moral disengagement. Dehumanization is a key mechanism for achieving this moral disengagement. By perceiving a group as subhuman animals, they are placed outside the universe of moral obligation. Principles of morality no longer apply to them, making acts of violence morally permissible or even necessary in the eyes of the perpetrator.

Justifying atrocity. If the target group is seen as vermin, their extermination becomes an act of hygiene. If seen as predators, killing them is self-defense. If seen as livestock or prey, exploiting or hunting them is natural. This psychological transformation allows individuals to commit acts of extreme cruelty and violence without experiencing the normal levels of guilt or revulsion.

6. Genocide is consistently linked to dehumanizing victims as vermin, predators, or prey, justifying extermination.

In most genocidal events the perpetrators devalue the humanity of their victims, often by referring to the victims as animals, diseased, or exceptionally filthy...

A recurring pattern. Across diverse genocides throughout history, a consistent pattern emerges: the targeted group is systematically dehumanized through propaganda and rhetoric, portraying them as creatures that evoke disgust, fear, or the urge to hunt.

• Nazis depicted Jews as rats, lice, and bacilli, carriers of disease infecting the Aryan body politic.
• Rwandan Hutus called Tutsis "cockroaches" and "snakes," justifying their extermination as a "clean-up."
• Turkish authorities referred to Armenians as "microbes" and "parasites" to be eliminated.
• Janjaweed militias in Darfur called black Darfurians "black donkeys," "black dogs," and "black monkeys" while killing them.

Moral imperative. This form of dehumanization often frames mass killing as a moral imperative – an act of cleansing, self-defense, or necessary hygiene. The victims are not seen as suffering individuals, but as a collective threat, a pestilence to be eradicated for the good of the "human" group.

Beyond metaphor. While sometimes dismissed as mere metaphor, these animalistic characterizations reflect a genuine psychological shift. The perpetrators come to see their victims as literally less than human, enabling them to inflict suffering and death with zeal and without remorse.

7. Our minds are predisposed to categorize human groups like biological species, providing a foundation for racial/ethnic essentialism.

The striking similarity between patterns of folk-biological and racial thinking suggests that racial thinking is domain-specific...

Folk-biology and folk-sociology. Humans possess intuitive, domain-specific cognitive systems for understanding the world. One system, folk-biology, helps us classify living things into species based on perceived essences. Another, folk-sociology (or human kinds module), helps us classify human groups.

Shared principles. These two systems operate on remarkably similar principles: both assume categories are natural kinds defined by hidden essences, that these essences are heritable, and that they determine typical characteristics. This psychological overlap makes it easy to think about human groups (ethnoraces) using the same framework as biological species.

Pseudospeciation. The theory of cultural pseudospeciation suggests that as human groups developed distinct cultural markers (language, dress, rituals), they began to "look" like biological species to the human brain. This triggered the folk-biology module, leading people to essentialize ethnic groups and perceive ethnic identity as biologically inherited, laying the groundwork for racial thinking and, subsequently, dehumanization.

8. Humans possess a unique capacity for deliberate cruelty and organized warfare, enabled by higher-order cognition.

But only humans, I believe, are capable of deliberate cruelty—acting with the intention of causing pain and suffering.

Beyond animal aggression. While some animals exhibit aggression and even lethal violence towards their own kind (like chimpanzee raiding), humans are uniquely capable of deliberate cruelty and organized warfare. This difference is not just in degree, but in kind, linked to our higher-order cognitive abilities.

Cruelty requires reflection. Deliberate cruelty involves intentionally causing harm, which requires consciousness of one's intentions and the concept of harm itself. This level of reflection is beyond the capacity of nonhuman animals.

War as a cultural institution. Unlike instinctual animal aggression, human warfare is a complex cultural institution involving planning, abstract concepts ("the enemy"), and overcoming natural inhibitions against killing. Dehumanization plays a crucial role in enabling this by redefining the target as outside the moral community.

9. Addressing dehumanization requires understanding its deep psychological and evolutionary roots.

To deal effectively with dehumanization, we need to understand its mechanics.

Beyond rational appeals. Simply arguing that all humans are equal or appealing to universal human rights is often ineffective against dehumanization. Perpetrators may agree with the principles but deny that their victims qualify as "human." Rational arguments fail because dehumanization operates at a deeper, intuitive, and emotional level.

Limitations of sentimentality. While telling "long, sad, sentimental stories" can foster empathy and expand the circle of moral concern, this approach is also vulnerable. Propaganda often uses sentimental stories to evoke sympathy for the "us" group suffering at the hands of the "animalistic" enemy, reinforcing dehumanization rather than combating it.

The need for science. Understanding dehumanization requires a scientific approach that investigates its psychological mechanisms, cognitive underpinnings (essentialism, folk-biology/sociology), and evolutionary history. This knowledge, while potentially hazardous, is necessary to develop effective strategies for preventing dehumanization and its devastating consequences.

Last updated: May 29, 2025