Anthropomorphism, Binaries, and Racism

Anthropomorphism, Binaries, and Racism

The problem of other minds poses the question as to whether other individuals, besides oneself, have minds of their own. The problem of other minds is a skeptical question and does not seem to impact the common attitude of people in their daily interactions with others. Many accept that others have minds as a given. However, the problem of other minds does, in fact, have implications that affect daily human interactions. One can observe how the failure to attribute others as having minds, equal to one’s own, is an ethical issue raised by the problem of other minds. In this paper, I will observe how dehumanization is a consequence of the problem of other minds. In particular, I argue that the nature of anthropomorphism affects the human population’s ability to attribute full mentality to others, perpetuating problematic systemic inequalities such as racism and prejudice.

Anthropomorphism is the ability to attribute human characteristics to a God, animal, or object. It is a prominent human behavior that can be performed on a variety of scales. One can observe anthropomorphism as a child plays and empathizes with their stuffed animals. One can also observe anthropomorphism as an individual expresses profanities towards their car as the engine refuses to turn over. Humans have the natural ability to attribute minds to objects or ideas which do not, in fact, have minds. However, the nature of anthropomorphism allows one to question why individuals attribute human qualities to certain objects or ideas. One can observe how anthropomorphism creates a dichotomy between those with minds and those who do not have minds. This dichotomy blurs the lines between those who factually have minds and those who do not.

This leads one to consider why humans attribute full mentality to certain objects, ideas, or humans, and not to others. In Nicholas Epley, Juliana Schroeder, and Adam Waytz’s Motivated Mind Perception: Treating Pets as People and People as Animals, Epley, Schroeder, and Waytz discuss why humans attribute human features to certain objects or ideas. They claim that motivation encourages individuals to connect with inanimate objects, ideas, and other humans. Epley, Schroeder, and Waytz note how humans feel motivated to connect with others that are cute or attractive. They claim that “cuteness prompts social engagement, and may lead to anthropomorphism, whereas ugliness prompts social disengagement and avoidance” (Epley,

139). Their observation allows us to note how humans feel more motivated to connect with inanimate objects, ideas, or humans that seem more attractive.

However, Epley, Schroeder, and Waytz also observe how humans fail to attribute human qualities, such as full mentality, to other humans. They claim that “the inverse process of anthropomorphism when evaluating other people is dehumanization- failing to attribute humanlike mental capacities to other people, and therefore evaluating (or treating) them as relatively mindless animals or objects” (Epley, 143).

One can observe how the lack of perceiving an object or human as attractive can affect a human’s ability to attribute full mentality to other humans. Western beauty standards and norms revolve around perceiving whiteness and European features as attractive. When an individual does not fit the established mold perpetuated by western beauty standards, those who perceive western beauty standards as attractive may attribute that individual as not having full mentality, dehumanizing the individual. This process ultimately contributes to systemic racism and dehumanizing people of color. One can observe how the dehumanization of people of color is reflected in racists tropes and rhetoric. People of color are compared to animals and seen as less than human. Rather than attributing human characteristics to animals, animal features are attributed to humans.

The differentiation between animals and humans is discussed in Vinciane Despret’s, The Becoming of Subjectivity In Animal Worlds. Despret claims, “When philosophers deal with the issue of the difference between human and animal beings, there is always a double “we” that imposes itself: “we'' know that “we” are different” (Despret, 123). Despret introduces the concept of othering and the human tendency to create a binary between humans and animals. Perceiving humans as animals, in particular people of color as animals, contributes to their dehumanization because it places them in a category seen as less than human. As Despret mentions, “we'' see ourselves as human, so perceiving people of color as animals, further contributes to their dehumanization.

This process is clearly problematic and rooted in the failure to attribute individuals who have full mentality, as having full mentality. It is a multifaceted problem that has deep roots ingrained within the fabric of society. One may argue that western beauty standards are not significant enough to contribute to this sort of dehumanization. However, I argue that western beauty standards and norms are more prevalent than we believe. They have deep ties with white

supremacy and the perpetuation of capitalism. The perpetuation of western beauty standards is rooted in ulterior motives designed to keep certain groups of people oppressed. One can consider western beauty standards' connection with racism, as mentioned above. However, one can also consider how western beauty standards are used to control female bodies into adhering to complacency. All of these mechanisms allow those in positions of power to remain in positions of power, maintaining capitalism and white supremacy, therefore perpetuating racism and prejudice.

Works Cited:

Despret, Vinciane. The Becomings of Subjectivity in Animal Worlds. 2008.

Epley, Nicholas, et al. Motivated Mind Perception: Treating Pets as People and People as Animals. 2013.