Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Dehumanization
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== 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 [[ShirΕ 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 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.{{Citation needed|date=April 2025}}{{original research inline|date=April 2025}} 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=253β264|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=176β186|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 = 351β408 }}</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.<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=58β62|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=486β491|doi=10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.009|s2cid=51784778 }}</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 1904 [[Louisiana Purchase Exposition]], [[human zoo]]s 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". After relocating to [[New York (state)|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>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)