Rehumanization
Rehumanization is the process by which one reverses the damage done by dehumanization. That is, in individuals or groups, the process of rehabilitating one’s way of perceiving the other(s) in question in one’s mind and in consequent behavior.
A study conducted at Princeton by Mary Wheeler and Susan Fiske (2005) showed that rehumanization can be reached by blocking brain activation which is usually suitable with the appearance of an individual. Wheeler and Fiske were able to help subjects unconsciously suppress the activation of “fight or flight”, and rehumanization was achieved when he or she was seen not as a category, racial or other, but as an individual: the researchers “primed” the subjects by asking them to guess whether the person whose face they were about to see liked coffee or tea, etc.
In general, rehumanization can usually be achieved by avoiding labels and stereotypes in one’s language and thoughts. Other techniques that have been found to be effective include:
“deep listening,” involving the use of the imagination to see through what another is saying (in words or action). This technique is often taught, among other places, in the system called Nonviolent Communication.
remembering that all humans share certain core needs and values; as Einstein said, “remember our humanity; and forget all the rest”
guarding one’s thoughts and language to keep out stereotypes and labels
avoiding media depictions and other outside influences that encourage such stereotyping.
In the 21st century, rehumanization represents a corrective response to the widespread and technologically amplified forms of dehumanization, drawing on foundational principles of humanism while adapting to modern challenges. This dynamic interplay is defined by three core components: the ongoing practice of rehumanization, the contemporary drivers of dehumanization, and the evolving nature of 21st-century humanism itself.
Rehumanization is the intentional process of restoring humanity to individuals or groups who have been stripped of their dignity, empathy, and recognition as fully human persons. It is not a fixed doctrine but a practical and active reversal of dehumanizing attitudes and systems. In the 21st century, this process operates on both interpersonal and systemic levels:
Individuation over categorization: Rehumanization counters stereotyping by promoting recognition of individuals as complex people, not as members of a faceless outgroup. Research shows this can be encouraged by techniques like “deep listening” or “perspective-taking,” which foster empathy.
Systemic change in institutions: It involves reforming systems and institutions—such as healthcare, law enforcement, and media—to correct discriminatory practices that perpetuate dehumanization. For instance, medical training that emphasizes empathy has been shown to reduce the unintentional dehumanization of patients.
Restoring agency and dignity: For individuals who have experienced societal dehumanization, the process involves rebuilding a sense of self-worth and reconnecting with one’s own humanity. This includes addressing issues of marginalization, inequality, and trauma.
The 21st century’s unique forms of dehumanization are driven by forces of technology, economics, and political polarization.
Mechanistic and digital dehumanization: The digital realm introduces new forms of dehumanization. Mechanisms that treat individuals as mere data points, users, or consumers rather than complex human beings can lead to a mechanistic form of dehumanization. Algorithmic systems and social media can filter and distort human interactions, removing the nuanced human element.
Economic prioritization: An ethical blind spot in the prioritization of economic factors can invert moral reasoning, where corporate entities are granted autonomy while humans are reduced to their economic roles as workers or consumers. This devalues human dignity and agency.
Polarized social discourse: Digital echo chambers and partisan media create a fertile ground for “othering” and dehumanization. In these environments, oppositional groups are often stripped of their individuality and reduced to simplistic, negative caricatures, making violence and hostility seem more acceptable.
Historical repetition: While contemporary forms are distinct, they rest on historical precedents of animalistic dehumanization, where marginalized groups are equated with subhuman entities like vermin or machines to justify exploitation, systemic oppression, and violence.
21st-century humanism provides the philosophical groundwork for rehumanization, but it is not without its own internal debates and challenges.
Secular, democratic, and global values: Modern humanism emphasizes secular, democratic, and pluralistic values focused on human well-being, freedom, and progress. It advocates for a global familial ethic that emphasizes concern for the welfare of all members of the human family, moving beyond national, religious, and ethnic divisions.
Confronting posthumanism and transhumanism: Emerging trends in technology and philosophy challenge classical humanism’s assumptions about the nature of being human. Posthumanism and transhumanism question the traditional human-centric view, exploring the expansion of human capabilities through technology and the ethical implications of these developments. This debate raises questions about what it truly means to be human in an age of artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, and human enhancement.
The militant defense of human dignity: In response to the collapse of liberal globalist ideals and the assault on universal human rights, some have called for a “militant humanism”. This approach does not take humanism for granted but actively fights to protect humanist principles, recognizing that they must be defended against assault.
Synthesis: Rehumanization as applied 21st-century humanism
In practice, rehumanization is the application of modern humanist values to counter contemporary dehumanization. It is the active, often difficult, work of living out humanist principles in an era of unprecedented challenges.
Action over rhetoric: While humanism provides the ethical framework, rehumanization emphasizes the need for concrete, empathetic action—such as meaningful dialogue and collaborative projects—to overcome historical divides and prejudice.
Navigating new ethical dilemmas: Rehumanization demands ethical clarity in a complex landscape. For example, as new technologies blur the lines between human and machine, it requires a conscious effort to prevent new forms of dehumanization based on technological inferiority or enhancement.
Acknowledging interconnection: In its highest form, 21st-century rehumanization recognizes that all matter is interlinked and mutually dependent. It promotes a cultural shift that prioritizes the well-being of all humanity and the planet, moving beyond nationalistic and tribalistic interests that fuel dehumanization.