Examples of human vs. non-human

Post Reply New Topic

Understood. Can you think of some criterion for "essentially different from" that does not involve "better than/worse than"?

Mmm. Reminds me of the colonial justification for massacring the natives because they allegedly had no soul.

Our findings indicate that people attribute two distinct forms of humanness to social categories. Some categories are attributed fewer uniquely human traits than others, as in infrahumanization, and some categories are attributed fewer human-nature traits than others, as in self-humanizing. This effect is evident in explicit ratings and implicit associations. In addition, the humanness traits are differentially associated with distinct types of nonhumans: Uniquely human traits are associated with automata more than with animals, and human-nature traits are associated with animals more than with automata. Completing the triangle, social categories that are attributed less of one form of humanness are associated with the corresponding type of nonhuman. Categories perceived to lack uniquely human traits are associated with animals, and those seen as lacking human-nature traits are associated with automata.
These findings add to a growing body of evidence that humanness is an important dimension in social perception. Infrahumanization involves the differential attribution of uniquely human emotions to in-group and out-group, and selfhumanizing involves the differential attribution of human-nature traits to self and other. Our findings indicate that human-nature traits are also relevant to perception of groups. It is not only humanness traits that are differentially associated with social categories, however, but also the different types of nonhumans that are linked to the relative lack of these traits. Although our findings do not allow us to argue that certain groups are directly likened to nonhumans, they suggest a subtle, implicit form of dehumanization operating in everyday group perception (i.e., some groups are more likened to nonhumans than others).
An important implication of these findings is that some groups may be attributed less humanness than others, and implicitly linked to nonhumans, in the absence of any strong negative evaluation. The differentially attributed humanness traits were of mixed valence, and neither artists nor businesspeople are normally targets of prejudice. In contrast, most theorists place dehumanization in the context of aggression and violence (Bandura, Underwood, & Fromson, 1975; Bar-Tal, 2000; Kelman, 1976; Schwartz & Struch, 1989). Our findings imply that dehumanization may occur even when groups are not derogated or in conflict. Instead, the two forms of humanness might represent dimensions of stereotype content (Fiske et al., 1999, 2002), with each type of nonhuman implicitly defining an extreme on one dimension. When intergroup antagonism arises, comparisons with nonhumans may become explicit, but at other times, groups are merely perceived as more or less lacking in sophistication and civility (uniquely human), or animation, warmth, and emotional depth (human nature).
The processes underpinning the implicit associations observed in the present study remain uncertain. Similarly, it is unclear how these associations may influence everyday social cognition and behavior. Nevertheless, the findings open up a new line of inquiry into social perception. This study indicates that denying human attributes to other people and likening them to nonhumans are subtle and everyday phenomena.