What is metadesumanization? Characteristics of this social phenomenon

Let's see what mutual dehumanization between groups consists of and how to reverse this phenomenon.

Dehumanization is a concept that is being studied more and more frequently, trying to find out exactly what its implications are.

But this phenomenon can go one step further, giving rise to what is known as metadesumanization.. With these lines we will try to explain what exactly this complex idea means, what are the features that define it and how it affects the person who experiences it.

What does metadeshumanization consist of?

If we want to understand the concept of metadesumanization, 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 a person or group of persons denies the human condition of another or other individuals..

This form of discrimination occurs, therefore, when a certain group of subjects is considered as less human or less valid humans. The argumentation 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 dehumanizer.

Before focusing on metadesumanization, which is a further leap in this reasoning, we should know more about dehumanization. Throughout history, this behavior has given rise to acts ranging from mere discrimination to humiliation and, finally, to some of the most serious crimes ever committed..

Some of these facts 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 lesser humans.

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

Metadesumanization implies moving forward on this issue to realize a change of perspective, as we will explain below. 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 by the United States, which in its Declaration of Independence described them as savages and ruthless, or the Jews by Nazi Germany, who were systematically executed, giving rise to the Holocaust.

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

Characteristics of this phenomenon

Now that we have been able to know in more detail what dehumanization refers to, we can step into the realm of metadesumanization. This concept involves a deeper level of analysis, as it places the point of view, not on the group that is dehumanizing other people, but on those people who are feeling dehumanized.

Therefore, metadeshumanization would refer to the perception of a person, or group of people, of being treated as if they were less human or not human 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 actually being dehumanized, or they may be feeling this way even though it is not true.

The main effect of metadesumanization 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 (again, even if this is not really the case and it is merely a perception), the most likely outcome is that the group that is apparently discriminated against will in turn begin to dehumanize the other group, creating a rebound effect.

Obviously, this effect can occur again in the other direction and start with an escalation of discrimination, hatred and polarization between groups that can end up exploding into conflict between the two sides. This behavior can be observed between groups with very opposing positions, such as rival fans of a sports club, or even between supporters of different political parties.

The consequences of metadesumanization

Now that we know that metadesumanization entails a process of reciprocal dehumanization that can escalate between the two groups, we can explore some of the consequences of this phenomenon. One of them is an increase in the acceptance of negative actions against the opposing group..

Moreover, this acceptance will be greater the more the process of mutual dehumanization escalates. Likewise, reprisals of an increasingly severe nature will be accepted, generating a vicious circle in which the attacks are sequentially more severe and perceived as increasingly justified by the group that commits them, which in turn leads the other group to act in the same way.

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

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

How to reverse metadeshumanization

The reality is that metadesumanization, and the phenomenon it triggers, need not be a one-way street. In other words. It is possible to reverse its effects and prevent the escalation of violence to such an extent that there is no way back for the groups of people involved in metadeshumanization. for the groups of people involved in the conflict. The question is how to achieve this.

In a study on metadeshumanization led by Nour Kteily, in 2016, they found that just as this mechanism exists, there is exactly the opposite, which is humanization and therefore metahumanization. We saw earlier that a downward and polarizing spiral of positions was generated between both groups. In this case, just the opposite happens.

That is, when we have two groups of people who, for whatever reason, have fallen into the spiral of metadesumanization and therefore find themselves in a growing conflict between them, we may be able to reverse the situation if one of the groups takes the initiative and adopts a humanizing attitude towards the other group..

Just as it happened in a negative way, if one group carries out actions towards the other group, but with humanizing connotations, the tension generated will decrease and it will be more likely that the other group will also decide to reciprocate with a similar action, which could stop the de-escalation and change the direction of the cycle in which they were moving.

The explanation for this phenomenon is simple, since metahumanization is nothing more than the negative of the picture of metadesumanization. If one group of people believes that another considers them to be human and therefore recognizes the rights they have as persons, the logical reaction is to do the same with respect to the first group of people..

This is how another type of spiral is generated, in this case a positive one, in which the positions of the two groups, previously opposed, gradually become closer and closer until they mutually recognize each other as fully human and therefore grant each other all the rights they deserve.

This descent ends when the situation is totally normalized and discrimination between the two groups of people disappears, although both maintain the identity traits that had previously generated the conflict. In other words, they continue to be independent collectives, 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 metadesumanization. In order to do so, one of these groups is required to make a gesture, an action, in which it humanizes the opposite group..

It will also be necessary that the rival group picks up the baton and returns this action, to give rise to the de-escalation that is sought to resume normality between the two.