To be or not to be human: Resolving the paradox of dehumanisation
| Author | Adrienne de Ruiter |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1474885120984605 |
| Published date | 01 January 2023 |
| Date | 01 January 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article EJPT
To be or not to be
human: Resolving
the paradox of
dehumanisation
Adrienne de Ruiter
University of Humanistic Studies, The Netherlands
Abstract
Dehumanisation is a puzzling phenomenon. Nazi propaganda likened the Jews to rats,
but also portrayed them as ‘poisoners of culture’. In the Soviet Union, the Stalinist
regime called opponents vermin, yet put them on show trials. During the Rwandan
genocide, the Hutus identified the Tutsis with cockroaches, but nonetheless raped Tutsi
women. These examples reveal tensions in the way in which dehumanisers perceive,
portray and treat victims. Dehumanisation seems to require that perpetrators both
deny and acknowledge the humanity of their victims in cer tain ways. Several scholars
have proposed solutions to this so-called ‘paradox of dehumanisation’ that question the
usefulness of dehumanisation as a concept to explain genocidal violence, claim that
dehumanisation is characterised by an unstable belief in the non-human essence of the
dehumanised, or contend that dehumanisation revolves around a denial of metaphysical
human status. The main aim of this article is to present a novel framework for theoris-
ing dehumanisation that offers a more straightforward solution to this paradox based
on the idea that perpetrators deny their victims’ human standing in a moral sense
without necessarily negating their biological human status or human subjectivity.
The article illustrates this framework through examples drawn from Primo Levi’s mem-
oirs of Auschwitz.
Keywords
Auschwitz, dehumanisation, genocide, Holocaust, humanity, Primo Levi, propaganda,
subjectivity, violence
Corresponding author:
Adrienne de Ruiter, University of Humanistic Studies, Kromme Nieuwegracht 29, 3512 HD, Utrecht,
The Netherlands.
Email: A.deRuiter@uvh.nl
European Journal of Political Theory
!The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1474885120984605
journals.sagepub.com/home/ept
2023, Vol. 22(1) 73–95
Introduction
Dehumanisation involves the paradoxical perception, portrayal or treatment of a
human being as something that is not (quite) human. In his memoirs on
Auschwitz, Primo Levi offers an intriguing perspective of this phenomenon
when he recounts his meeting with Dr Pannwitz, the head of the chemical depart-
ment who was to evaluate whether Levi might be of use to the Nazis as a chemist.
Levi recalls how the look Pannwitz gave him suggested that they belonged to
different worlds, as if they were members of different species:
Pannwitz is tall, thin, blond; he has eyes, hair and nose as all Germans ought to have
them, and sits formidably behind a complicated writing-table. I, H€
aftling 174517,
stand in his office, which is a real office, shining, clean, and ordered, and I feel
that I would leave a dirty stain whatever I touched. When he finished writing, he
raised his eyes and looked at me. [...] that look was not one between two men; and if
I had known how completely to explain the nature of that look, which came as
if across the glass window of an aquarium between two beings who live in different
worlds, I would also have explained the essence of the great insanity of the third
Germany. (Levi, 1991: 111–112)
The insanity that bewildered Levi concerns the question of how Nazi ideology
could distort human relations to such an extent that it allowed people to view
other human beings as fundamentally different from themselves. Many aspects of
the scenario that Levi sketches invoke the human dimensions of the scene taking
place: the neat office, Levi’s nervous concern about his dirty state, the objective
of assessing the practical value of Levi’s chemical expertise for the Germans.
Yet, Pannwitz allegedly considered the subject in front of him as something alto-
gether distinct from himself. As Michael Ignatieff (2001: 3) puts it, ‘[h]ere was a
scientist, trained in the traditions of European rational inquiry, turning a meeting
between two human beings into an encounter between different species.’
This story speaks to the paradox of a human being who is not considered
human. The main aim of this article is to make sense of these puzzling aspects
of dehumanisation by establishing a novel framework for theorising dehumanisa-
tion that is able to offer a solution for the so-called ‘paradox of dehumanisation’.
This paradox reveals tensions that characterise the way in which the dehumanised
are viewed, portrayed and treated, and highlights how dehumanisation seems to
require that perpetrators simultaneously deny and acknowledge the humanity of
their victims in certain ways. This article will contribute to resolving these tensions
by developing an account of dehumanisation that distinguishes between three dif-
ferent types of human status, which relate to people’s biological nature, psycho-
logical subjectivity and normative standing. The central argument is that while
dehumanisers generally (although not necessarily) acknowledge the biological
status of their victims and confirm that they have certain psychological character-
istics that people typically share, such as a highly developed consciousness, a sense
74 European Journal of Political Theory 22(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial