Writing
Memento Immorti (MFA Thesis)
- Page 2 of 30
- << Prev | Next >>
However, the anthropological classification of “human” is not so simple. While it is commonly believed that firm scientific distinctions exist between humans and other animals, the very nature of evolution does not yield immutable forms. This important fact does not rest well with most people. Even Charles Darwin felt remarkably uncomfortable with the idea that species change with time, lamenting that such a belief was “like confessing a murder.” Indeed, the hierarchy humans impose upon nature is derived from the belief that “species have eternal, immutable, and discrete essences.” Such ideas form the basis of much of Western thought, taking root in the philosophies of humanism and positivism. These beliefs are greatly responsible for the idea “of a single, generic human body… cast… in the image of the robust, European, heterosexual gentleman,” by which deviance can be measured. It is common that the more physically “deviant” an individual, the greater the moral repugnancy at labeling him or her “human.” However, “human” is an increasingly mutable term that will find itself constantly in question as our bodies become less reliant on biology. To consider a machine “human” today may be as equally offensive as it was for Victorian England to humanize Joseph Merrick, the Elephant Man. History has a way of lighting a torch in the past to better illuminate the present.
While the classification of “human” remains anthropologically ambiguous, personhood is generally a political distinction, and therefore subject to the zeitgeist. The common perception of the history of racism in America is that white landowners adopted slavery because they considered Africans to be less human than themselves. This belief certainly existed among the polygenists at that time, who asserted that Africans were biologically inferior to Caucasians, and thus more closely related to apes. However, the “humanness” of Africans was irrelevant to the question of whether slavery should be abolished. While many considered Africans subhuman, Africans were still classified as “intelligent beings” in the scala naturae, inferior to Caucasians but superior to orangutans. The moral question involved was whether Africans were sophisticated enough in their thoughts and feelings to be considered “persons.” If Africans were in fact persons, then they should be recognized as fellow citizens and it would be morally abhorrent to enslave them. In a similar example, the results of Nazi medical experiments conducted on Jews were applied to the treatment of Aryans. Theologian Anne Foerst writes that, “If a Jewish woman happened to be blond and blue-eyed [the Nazis] would ‘breed’ her to give birth to more Aryans.” While the Nazis did not view the Jews as persons, they still regarded them as human. In Western thinking, personhood is a greater arbitrator of rights than is humanness.