What is meta-dehumanization? Characteristics of this social phenomenon

Dehumanization is a concept that is being studied with increasing frequency, trying to find out exactly what its implications are.

But this phenomenon can go a step further, giving rise to what is known as meta-dehumanization.. With these lines we are going to try to explain what exactly this complex idea means, what are the traits that define it and how it affects the person who experiences it.

• Related article: "What is social psychology?"

What is meta-dehumanization?

If we want to understand the concept of meta-dehumanization, it is essential that we first make a short introduction in which the phenomenon of dehumanization is clarified. Dehumanization is a type of behavior by which one person or group of people denies the human condition of another or other individuals.

This form of discrimination occurs, therefore, it entails the consideration of a certain group of subjects as less human or less valid human. The argument used for this is based on one or more of the characteristics of these subjects, which place them in a different group from the point of view of the one who dehumanizes.

Before focusing on meta-dehumanization, which is a further leap in this reasoning, we must have a better understanding of dehumanization. Along the history, This behavior has given rise to acts that have ranged from mere discrimination to humiliation and finally, to some of the most serious crimes committed.

Some of these events would be slavery, which for centuries was common in different cultures, war crimes, genocide or the denial of certain fundamental rights, such as the right to vote, due to a series of characteristics that, according to legislators, made them less human or less human. category.

This dehumanization can be exercised by virtue of physical, social, religious, ethnic, national, political differences or any other dimension. that can segregate people into different typologies and one of them is willing to discriminate against the other groups due to this divergence.

Meta-dehumanization implies advancing on this issue to make a change of perspective, as we will explain later. Some of the clearest and most forceful examples of dehumanization that have been carried out throughout history, with terrible consequences, have been that of the Native Americans on the part of the United States, which in its Declaration of Independence described as savage and ruthless, or the Jews by Nazi Germany, who were systematically executed, giving place to the Holocaust.

Obviously, not all examples of dehumanization go to these extremes, as there are much more subtle behaviors, such as the use of derogatory qualifiers or animal names to refer to a specific population. All of them suppose a way of considering a group as less human than they are.

• You may be interested in: "Group identity: the need to feel part of something"

Characteristics of this phenomenon

Now that we have been able to learn in more detail what dehumanization refers to, we can take the step and enter the realm of meta-dehumanization. This concept supposes a deeper level of analysis, since it places the point of view, not the group that is dehumanizing other people, but in those people who are feeling dehumanized.

Therefore, meta-dehumanization would refer to the perception of a person or group of people, of being treated as if they were less human or not at all by other individuals. It is important to note that this perception may or may not correspond to reality. That is, it is possible that these people are being really dehumanized, or they may be feeling that way even though it is not true.

The main effect of meta-dehumanization is, paradoxically, the dehumanization of the opposing group. In other words, when a group feels that it is being treated as less human by another group (we repeat, although it is not really like that and everything is reduced to a mere perception), it is most likely that the apparently discriminated group will in turn begin to dehumanize the other group, creating an effect rebound.

Obviously, this effect can reoccur in the other direction and begin with an escalation of discrimination, hatred and polarization between groups That can end up in a conflict between both parties. This behavior can be observed among groups with very opposing positions, such as be rival hobbies of a sports club, or even between supporters of different matches politicians.

The consequences of meta-dehumanization

Now that we know that meta-dehumanization involves a process of reciprocal dehumanization that can scale between both groups, we can investigate some of the consequences of this phenomenon. One of them is increasing acceptance of negative actions against the opposing group.

Furthermore, this acceptance will be greater the more the process of mutual dehumanization escalates. Likewise, increasingly severe reprisals will be accepted, thus creating a vicious circle in which attacks are every now and then. sequentially more serious and perceived each time as more justified by the group that commits them, which in turn gives rise to the other group acting in the same way. same way.

It is evident that this situation generates a very dangerous dynamic, since dehumanization and meta-dehumanization are on the rise and this justifies the use of increasingly cruel methods on both sides and dehumanizing. The positions will be increasingly confronted, if possible, and the opponent will become a rival and then openly an enemy, who must be eliminated.

At that point, the situation will be untenable, and the conflict will be so heated that it will be difficult to appease it. But is there a way to do it?

How to reverse meta-dehumanization

The reality is that meta-dehumanization and the phenomenon it triggers, do not have to be a path of no return. In other words. It is possible to reverse its effects and prevent the escalation of violence from being such that there is no going back for the groups of people involved in said conflict. The question is how to achieve it.

In a 2016 study on meta-dehumanization led by Nour Kteily, they found that like There is this mechanism, there is exactly the opposite, which is humanization and therefore metahumanization. We saw before that a downward and polarizing spiral was being generated in the positions between the two groups. In this case, just the opposite happens.

That is, when we have two groups of people who, for whatever reasons, have fallen into the spiral of meta-dehumanization and thus find themselves in increasing conflict between they, we could get to reverse the situation if one of the groups takes the initiative and takes a humanizing attitude with the opposite.

As was the case in a negative way, if one group carries out actions towards the other group, but with humanizing connotations, the tension generated will decrease and will be more It is likely that the other group will also decide to correspond with a similar action, which could slow down the de-escalation and change the direction of the cycle in which they were moving.

The explanation of this phenomenon is simple, since metahumanization is still the negative of the meta-dehumanization photo. If a group of people believes that another considers them human and therefore recognizes their rights as individuals, the logical reaction is to do the same with respect to the former..

This is how another type of spiral is generated, in this case of a positive cut, in which progressively the positions between both groups, previously confronted, they get closer and closer until they recognize each other as fully human and therefore grant all rights what they deserve.

This decrease ends when the situation is completely normalized and the discrimination between both groups of people, although both maintain the identity traits that had generated the conflict previously. In other words, they continue to be independent groups, but there is no longer a problem between the two.

The conclusion that can be drawn from this observed phenomenon is that, in a situation of critical tension between two or more groups, there is a possible solution, which is to promote metahumanization, as opposed to meta-dehumanization. For it, one of these groups is required to have a gesture, an action, in which the opposite is humanized.

It will also be necessary for the rival group to pick up the baton and return this action, to give rise to the de-escalation that is being sought in order to return to normality between the two.