Cruelty and Intolerable Acts

Wanton Loss of Life A careful reading of David Livingston Smith's seminal treatise on the science of dehumanization, Less Than Human, reveals there is a fundamental relationship between the phenomena of dehumanization and that of genocide. There are countless examples which underpin this reality. Several genocides were accompanied by both thoughts and actions in which the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity seemed to consider their victims less than human.

Livingston largely seizes upon this point in assembling what is his stance on the exact nature of the relationship between these two phenomenons. His central premise regarding that relationship is that on a basic level, dehumanization is almost a prerequisite for genocide -- and certainly is a causal agent in the carrying out of attempts to completely eradicate a certain group of people. Livingston argues dehumanization is a pivotal part of most attempts at genocide.

It is not difficult to discern exactly why the author posits the aforementioned notion which serves as the thesis of this paper. There are countless events in history in which the exterminating group in a genocidal conflict makes it perfectly apparent it considers its foe as something less than human beings. According to Smith (2011): "The Nazis really considered Jews to be less than human. It is also how Japanese invaders conceived of their Chinese victims during the Nanjing Massacre.. and how Hutu genocidaires regarded their Tutsi compatriots..

This list could be extended indefinitely." It is critical to denote that each of the examples the author lists are of actual genocides in which the attacking group considered the other less than human. Thus, there is a direct correlation between dehumanization and genocide, as the former is a huge part in the enactment of the latter. It is worth noting that Smith is able to substantiate this correlation between dehumanization as a vital component of genocide in a number of different ways.

On the one hand, one can merely analyze some of the acts that have accompanied genocide and infer they are a demonstrative of some sort of perception of dehumanization on the part of the author of those acts. For instance, when Nazis would put parts of Jewish people in ovens, it seems fairly clear that the former was not considering the latter as fully human. The implication, of course, is that one puts animals and things that one cooks in the oven, not people.

However, a more tangible reinforcement of Smith's stance on this issue is evinced in the semantics of those perpetrating genocide. In numerous instances they refer to their victims as either animals or parts of animals. Smith references Muammar el-Quaddafi terming his opposition as "stray dogs." This sort of terminology is indicative of the more profound issue in which this sort of dehumanization is a fundamental part of acts of genocide.

Smith also provides a fair amount of scholarly concepts -- some of which is scientific, and some of which appears pseudo-scientific -- to explicate the relationship between dehumanization and genocide. One of the points he mentions is that without dehumanization, genocide would be virtually impossible to rationalize.

The author is able to demonstrate this point very well when he states: "When the Nazis consigned their victims to the ovens of Auschwitz they were, for the most part, slaughtering people who were physically indistinguishable from them." This passage underscores the glaring paradox innate to the notion of dehumanization, particularly as it is applied to genocide. The perpetrators of this violence are somehow unable to consider the humanity of people who are human and who, for the most part, look just like they themselves do.

This fact is certainly true in the case of the Nazi extermination effort of Jewish people. It suggests that in order to carry out a genocide, a group of people must somehow be able to overlook the humanity of its victims in order to carry out this type of action. Oftentimes, they are able to achieve this objective despite the fact that their victims greatly resemble themselves.

What the author is actually suggesting is there is a way for attackers to overcome the physical similarity between them and their victims in order to attempt genocide. That way is discussed by Smith in a couple of different approaches, one of which actually centers upon the issue of morality. There are moral elements to the killing of people, even by the most cold-blooded killers. Genocidal massacres however are largely bereft of this moral component because of the dehumanization involved.

According to the author, dehumanization has a distinct way of prohibiting one's "moral inhibitions," almost to the point in which they no longer exist. Therefore, a loss of morals is an important part of dehumanization, and one of its traits that enables it to lead to so many genocidal attempts. Dehumanization enables one to kill without any moral responsibility or perceptions, which is one of the reason it frequently accompanies genocides.

There is also a warped sense of valuation which is linked to dehumanizations which also helps to explain genocide. Such a devaluation of humanity to subhuman status can become, depending on the political climate at the time, "encased in law and custom," and "has often licensed slavery, genocide, and countless other cruelties" (Berreby, 2011).

Livingston himself refers to a "hierarcy of value" in which people have a different esteem for all of the things in existence including the theological, the sentient, non-sentient, people, animals, and others. It is because of this hierarchy that people are able to reduce the value of humans -- because there are already other things in this hierarchy that are both lower and higher than humans are.

When one is able to place people on this hierarchy at a status beneath those of other people they they become dehumanized in the eye of the beholder. Such a lack of humanization then justifies all sort of unspeakable acts, including tendencies to.