There are 3,418 occurrences of humanity in the HE Corpus. Several organisations and programmes have names containing humanity, e.g. Humanity First, Agenda for Humanity, Humanity Road and Humanity Crew. These proper nouns are included in the total count. However, they were excluded for the purposes of collocational analysis.
Click here to enlarge and for more details
Refresh the website if the graphics are not shownHumanity occurs mostly in documents published in Europe, closely followed by North America. Overall, the top five contributors in terms of occurrences are NGO_Fed, NGO, RC, IGO and WHS organisations.
NGO_Fed documents provide the greatest number of occurrences, primarily from activity reports published in North America and Europe but to a lesser extent. Occurrences from NGO were mostly obtained from activity reports published in Europe, North America and Asia, in order of relevance. Occurrences from RC were mostly found in European and Asian activity reports.
Occurrences from IGO were obtained equally from North American general documents with a noteworthy yet minor contribution from European activity reports. Lastly, WHS only generated occurrences from general documents published in 2014, 2015 and 2016, most of which were obtained from North American documents.
In humanitarian discourse, humanity is used to refer to four distinct but connected concepts:
the collective of human beings;
the human condition;
the quality of being humane; and
a humanitarian principle.
Humanity has the means and the knowhow to eradicate extreme poverty.
If we really want to work to guarantee the survival of humanity, abolishing war is necessary and inevitable.
Refugees are part of humanity and we can't leave them behind.
When used as a synonym for mankind, humanitarians mainly refer to humanity in order to:
assert their raison d'ĂŞtre as an organisation, i.e. to serve humanity;
state the ultimate goal of their activities, i.e to help and safeguard humanity; and
describe the problems they work towards overcoming, i.e challenges facing humanity.
The activities in commemoration of our 65th anniversary, including the roving heritage and digital museums, reaffirmed this commitment to serve humanity and save lives.
At the World Humanitarian Summit stakeholders rallied around this call, making more than 800 individual and joint commitments to uphold norms that safeguard humanity.
The focus has been to collectively tackle the most crucial issues facing humanity such as poverty, education, maternal mortality, infant and neo-natal mortality among others.
Poverty
Education
Maternal mortality
Infant mortality
Environmental harm
Climate change
Sustainable development
Humanity's food system
Water
Energy
Infectious diseases
Discrimination
Humanity is also used to refer to the state of being human: the human condition. In humanitarian discourse this notion is best exemplified by the expressions common humanity and shared humanity with 40 and 24 occurrences, respectively. We humans have at least one thing in common—we are all individuals of the same species.
Throughout the year, Habitat supporters and believers in a community of equality, of justice and of compassion reached across cultural divides to build up and celebrate our shared humanity .
The challenges ahead are immense: let us use our creativity and common humanity to guide us through the chaos, and to collectively strengthen our fragile world.
Humanitarians appeal to the notion of a common shared humanity as a justification for the activities they engage in. No matter how different humans can be among themselves, there seems to be a common denominator for the human experience. Humanitarians help vulnerable humans because they are simply human.
The concept of dehumanisation emerges from this understanding of humanity. Groups of humans may fail to relate to other humans on the most basic level to a point where they do not identify themselves with someone else's suffering. With 25 occurrences of suffering humanity in the HE Corpus, it may be therefore argued that acknowledging suffering in others is one of the driving forces of humanitarian action. Humanitarians are compelled to help other humans affected by situations that cause suffering. This may be why humanitarians describe certain groups of people as being denied or stripped of their humanity when their suffering is ignored.
However, Somalia requires that the world overcomes its short attention span; because this is a place where so many people are stripped of their humanity.
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity. To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanise them"
People being dehumanised include:
Refugees
IDPs
Asylum-seekers
Workers
Opposing conflict parties
Beneficiaries of assistance
Humanitarism as a system
Migrants
Women
Men
Poor people
Dehumanising agents include:
Public discourse
Human trafficking
Use of certain terminology
Conflict
Queueing to receive food assistance
Data-drive approaches to humanitarism
Extreme poverty
Forced labour
Humanity as a common denominator (seeing others' suffering and felling compelled to help) gives rise to an understanding of humanity in terms of dignity. i.e. what it is considered to be an acceptable human existence.
"Amel" recognizes a human being who's healthy, free, and has all this rights. Those three components are the human being himself, once one is deleted, then his humanity is being disrespected and denied.
The excerpt above summarises this notion of humanity with a set of three components, i.e. health, freedom and humans rights. If one of these components is disregarded, then a person's humanity is denied or disrespected. A human without freedom, health and rights is no human at all.
Humanity can be conceptualised as something that can be removed from an individual by either active objectification or passive disregard. On the one hand, a person is dehumanised when she or he is stripped of their humanity. i.e. they are considered to be less human. On the other hand, when a person's suffering elicits compassion in another, one may feel compelled to help improve that person's situation. The third notion of humanity is therefore centred on the idea of alleviating human suffering through actions.
We help people who find themselves in humanitarian crisis and cannot help themselves, because help is a manifestation of humanity and God's love.
Here, helping can be conceptualised more precisely an act of humanity. One sets out to help someone vulnerable because, in principle, it is usually in one's nature—or rather one's humanity—to recognise someone else's humanity in their suffering. This is also known as compassion.
As the world continues to face the threat of disasters–both natural and manmade–this young organisation has established itself as an internationally-recognised medical and humanitarian relief organisation with professional standards and strong compassion for humanity, regardless of colour, creed and religion.
In essence, humanitarian action consists of activities aimed at helping people. Treating humans with compassion implies respecting their humanity (in its sense of human condition). This meaning of humanity can also be expressed with the adjective humane, which accounts for 370 occurrences in the HE Corpus.
Humane combines mainly with nouns signifying:
activities and codes regarding the treatment of people (e.g. humane treatment, humane policy, humane immigration, humane management, humane standard, humane reform); and
life conditions of people (e.g. humane conditions; humane life; humane existence).
The notions of humanity as a condition and humanity as compassion inform what is known as the principle of humanity in the humanitarian domain. It can also be found described as a value.
The core humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence underpin the day-to-day operations of humanitarian organisations.
The organization defends the values of humanity and equity, and is convinced that access to healthcare for marginalized people requires an absence of judgment with respect to these individuals.
Below are the only three explicit definitions for humanity as a principle that were found in the HE Corpus.
The principle of humanity is to respect the life, dignity and safety of every individual.
Humanity: To seek 'to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found'.
Humanity: human suffering must be addressed wherever it is found. The purpose of humanitarian action is to protect life and health and ensure respect for human beings
In conclusion, humanity is a principle that rests on the two following dimensions:
respect for everyone's life in that every person is an individual that deserves an acceptable human existence (dignity and health); and
prevention and alleviation of any human suffering.
is the collective comprising all human beings
who faces challenges, issues, crises
who is sought to be protected by humanitarians
is a common shared element inherent to every human being
which presupposes that
human suffering is unacceptable
every human deserves an minimally adequate existence
when disregarded results in dehumanisation
is an approach to treating/handling people
which respects their condition as humans
is a value, humanitarian core principle
which constitutes the purpose of humanitarian action
which seeks to
protect humans' lives, health, dignity and safety
alleviate human suffering
prevent situations that cause human suffering
Frequent words that accompany a term are known as collocates. A given term and its collocates form collocations. These can be extracted automatically based on statistics and curated manually to explore interactions with concepts.
Comparisons over time between organisation types with the greatest contribution (NGO_Fed, NGO, RC, IGO and WHS organisations) proves to be meaningful. Below is an histogram for the top yearly collocation for each of the five organisations with the greatest contribution as well as across all organisation types.
Collocational data across all 5 organisation types analysed overwhelmingly shows impartiality as top collocate with humanity, with the exception of neutrality for 2006 and half for 2019.
NGO_Fed documents generated only 9 top collocates. Despite that NGO_Fed provides the greatest number of occurrences, many constitute proper nouns like names of organisations. These occurrences were excluded from the analysis. The top collocate with the highest score recorded is brightly from the expression 'humanity shone brightly'. Other top NGO_Fed collocates include whole, God, service, principle, serve, inclusion, chance and half.
NGO documents are clearly dominated by impartiality and neutrality, two other key humanitarian principles together with humanity. However, spiritually obtained the highest score for 2017. Other top NGO collocates include crime, principle, genocide and inclusion.
Collocational data from RC shows impartiality as the only top collocate for every year.
In IGO documents, the most prominent top collocate is neutrality. Other top IGO collocates include crime, section, whole, principle and agenda.
Lastly, WHS documents generated neutrality as top collocate with the highest score in 2014, closely followed by safeguard in 2016. The other top WHS collocate is neutrality.
Organisation subcorpora present unique and shared collocations with other organisation types. Unique collocations allow to discover what a particular organisation type says about humanity that others do not.
Top unique collocates for NGO_Fed include brightly, flourish, priceless, flame, richness, shine, bottom, hardship, passion and willing.
NGO documents feature spiritually, outrage, genocide, rob, Quran, distress, radical, prevail, compassion and affirm.
RC unique collocates with the highest scores are power, alleviation, sake, kindness, found, volunteerism, exhibition, champion and movement.
Documents from IGO generated the following top unique collocates: tool, segment, count, enjoy, section, well-being, NGO, history, serious and importance.
The only unique collocate for WHS is should.
Shared collocations allow to discover matching elements with organisations talk about humanity. These constitute intersections between subcorpora.
Top collocates shared by 2 organisation types are spirit (RC+NGO), God (NGO_Fed+NGO), planet (NGO_Fed+IGO), fundamental (RC+NGO_FED), walk (RC+NGO_Fed), suffering (NGO_Fed+NGO) and suffer (NGO_Fed+NGO).
Top collocates shared by 3 organisation types include confront (RC+NGO_Fed+IGO), serve (RC+NGO_Fed+NGO), safeguard (WHS+NGO+IGO), love (RC+NGO_Fed+NGO), independence (RC+NGO+IGO), whole (NGO_Fed+NGO+IGO), agenda (WHS+NGO+IGO) and invest (WHS+NGO+IGO).
Top collocates shared by 4 organisations are impartiality (RC+NGO_Fed+NGO+IGO), inclusion (RC+NGO_Fed+NGO+IGO), war (WHS+RC+NGO+IGO), responsibility (WHS+RC+NGO+IGO), great (WHS+RC+NGO+IGO), call (WHS+RC+NGO_Fed+IGO), one (WHS+NGO_Fed+NGO+IGO), continue (WHS+NGO_Fed+NGO+IGO) and make (WHS+RC+NGO_Fed+NGO).
Top collates shared by all organisations analysed (WHS+RC+NGO_Fed+NGO+IGO) include neutrality, shared, principle, crime, dignity, common, commitment, humanitarian and good.
Most multi-word expression containing humanity were found as part of proper nouns, which were excluded from the analysis. Collocational analysis revealed only one conceptual combination formed by humanity.
crime against humanity
This conceptual combinations can be further examined on demand. Please use the Discussion form at the bottom of this LAR.
Humanitarian action in Syria is plagued by insecurity, bureaucracy, manipulation, intimidation and limited operational capacity. External political and organisational agendas only make matters worse. To work on humanitarian issues in Syria is to walk an ethical tightrope. The humanitarian principles which underpin the Western aid system are under extraordinary pressure. Independence, neutrality, impartiality and humanity are under continual strain due to murky – if necessary – compromises and accommodations. Conventional humanitarianism is besieged.
In tandem with the growth of the humanitarian enterprise in the aftermath of the cold war, predictions about a humanitarian crisis of legitimacy and concerns about the integrity of the key humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality, universality and humanity have been cropping up at regular intervals. The embrace of technological innovation presents humanitarians with a new set of challenges to the sanctity of these principles. It also raises new questions in a very old discussion: what is humanitarian action and who are the humanitarians?
To address both the opportunities and the caveats, a 'data-enabled' rather than a 'data-driven' humanitarianism is needed – one that starts with understanding the rights of disaster-affected people and safeguarding against the potential dehumanisation of humanitarianism (whereby data and new technologies become the central focus rather than the enablers)
The chart below represents the distribution of humanity between 2005 and 2019 in terms of the number of occurrences and relative frequency of occurrences It also allows you to view the distribution across Regions, Organisations and Document types.
The relative frequency of a concept compares its occurrences in a specific subcorpora (i.e. Year, Region, Organisation Type, Document Type) to its total number of occurrences in the entire HE corpus. This indicates how typical a word is to a specific subcorpus and allows to draw tentative comparisons between subcorpora, e.g. Europe vs Asia or NGO vs IGO. You can read these relative frequencies as follows:
Relative frequency is expressed as a percentage, above or below the total number of occurrences, which are set at 100%. This measure is obtained by dividing the number of occurrences by the relative size of a particular subcorpus.
Under 100%: a word is less frequent in a subcorpus than in the entire corpus. This is means that the word is not typical or specific to a given subcorpus.
100%: a word is as frequent in a subcorpus as it is in the entire corpus.
Over 100%: a word is more frequent in a subcorpus than in the entire corpus. This means that the word in question is typical or specific to a given subcorpus.
As an author, you may be interested to explore why a concept appears more or less frequently in a given corpus. This may be related to the concept's nature, the way humanitarians in a given year, region, organisation type or document type use the concept, or the specific documents in the corpus and subcorpora itself. To manually explore the original corpus data, you can consult "contexts", or the search the corpus itself.
Occurrences of humanity were highest in 2016. However, 2009 saw the highest relative frequency with 1,119%.
Europe generated the greatest number of occurrences with a relative frequency of 63, which puts this region in sixth place in terms of relative frequency. With the second greatest number of occurrences, North America recorded the highest relative frequency with 164%.
The top 5 organisation types with the highest relative frequency of WHS, Project, NGO_Fed, RC and C/B.
Activity_Report provide the greatest number of occurrences. However, humanity obtains the highest relative frequency in Strategy documents with 184%.
This shows trends for humanity and its plural form in the vast Google Books corpus, which gives you a general idea of the evolution of the term in English books between 1950 and 2019. Values are expressed as a percentage of the total corpus instead of occurrences.
Please note that this is not a domain-specific corpus. However, it provides an overview of humanity across domains.
Mankind generates 115 occurrences and is synonymous with humanity in the sense of 'collective of human beings'.
There are 1,156 occurrences of compassion, which is synonymous with humanity in the sense of 'being humane.' It also appears to be conceptualised as a value together with associated notions such as justice, integrity and stewardship.
The HE corpus only contains 13 occurrences of inhumanity, which is an antonym of humanity in its sense of being humane.
It appears in coordination (e.g inhumanity and/or violence) with the following concepts:
fury
cruelty
hate
brutality
intolerance
suffering
injustice
violence
Given the low number of occurrences, only 2 multi-word expressions were detected:
horror of man's inhumanity
government's stubborn inhumanity
Looking at the adjective inhumane sheds some more light on the nature of this antonym. It collocates with the same categories of concepts as humane:
activities and codes regarding the treatment of people (e.g. humane treatment, inhumane act, inhumane practice, inhumane torture, inhumane policy); and
life conditions of people (e.g. inhumane conditions, inhumane circumstance).
However, there is a different group of nouns that may indicate a fringe meaning attributed to being humane/inhumane that was not previously detected. When describing concepts that involve punishment or inflicting harm on humans, humane seems to take on the meaning of 'causing as less suffering as possible' or 'causing an acceptable or comparatively lower level of suffering'. The following examples were extracted from the HE Corpus and illustrate well this notion:
humane weapon vs inhumane weapon
humane punishment vs inhumane punishment
humane sentence vs inhumane sentence
humane imprisonment vs inhumane imprisonment
You can add your feedback on this LAR and say whether you need us to expand the information on any section by filling in a brief form.