Decoding dehumanisation

Dehumanisation, the perception of other people as less than human, is a psychological process that has accompanied some of the worst atrocities in human history. A growing body of scientific knowledge is uncovering and revealing the psychological processes and brain mechanisms that shape violent human behaviour. In the near future, this knowledge will allow us to develop tools and frameworks to mitigate and prevent mass atrocities, address systemic discrimination, and reduce violent conflict.

We do not have to look far to see dehumanisation occur. We see it expressed in the statements of political leaders, reflected in public discourse, and embedded within certain ideologies and views.

I will be Osun State governor by next Friday ― Adeleke

The most common explanation of the relationship between dehumanisation and group-targeted harm is that dehumanisation promotes moral disengagement, removing an individual or group from the realm of moral concern. Moral disengagement is presumed to then enable perpetrators to justify the harm they inflict upon other humans by removing the moral concern that would normally inhibit harmful behaviors like killing, discriminating, or torturing others based on their group identity.

Other research has also indicated that dehumanisation is particularly associated with instrumental violence; violence that is morally objectionable but desirable for instrumental reasons. There are two other important explanations of the relationship between dehumanisation and group-targeted harm that warrants attention. The first has to do with elite threat perception – the conscious or unconscious estimation of political, military, or economic decision-makers that a group is dangerous. The literature on mass atrocities demonstrates that elite threat perception, which is shaped by the worldview and ideology of political, military, economic, and media elites – is a strong predictor of mass atrocities.

Elite conceptions of threat are often imbued with dehumanising ideas, like worldviews that prioritise notions of group purity, which can lead to violence through explicit policies or implicit directives. Some observers argue that political elites do not necessarily believe dehumanizing ideologies, but rather are rational, strategic actors who make use of dehumanising propaganda to legitimise atrocities or discriminatory acts in order to preserve their power or advance their interests.

In other words, dehumanisation, in the form of dangerous speech, is a tool at the hands of strategic manipulators, and is used to mobilise groups of people against another group of people by describing them as threatening, often in dehumanising ways, in ways that serve cynical self-interest. Either way, the mechanism and result are the same – elites use dehumanising rhetoric to describe threatening out-groups in order to mobilise their communities.

Dehumanisation may be embedded within the institutions of society. In other words, dehumanising ideas and rhetoric do not have to be active and acute to be harmful. Rather, many societies exhibit chronic forms of dehumanisation, by which certain groups are subjected to permanent less than human status.

These days it is hard to be shocked. One has become so inured to most sorts of dehumanising behaviour. Yes, you say as you shrug your head, this is what happens. Such cynicism erodes the obligation of people to demand that their fellow citizens, leaders or institutions live up to their own values.

There’s no pan-Nigerian spirit, debate all you want, the little that exists is negligible. When we think and feel each other’s pulse from the negative energy currently growing there’s no light anywhere near the end of the tunnel, In fact, there’s no tunnel end anywhere and anytime soon.

Prince Charles Dickson PhD,

pcdbooks@outlook.com