Like bread
Just a little more.
First of all, I mostly agree with Norm here.
One thing we are saying is that the human worth of those prisoners in the camps was being denied. Making them stand naked and vulnerable in the circumstances I have described was a way of announcing that anything – anything at all – could be done to them…To put the same thing differently, the respect or status we normally hold to be due to people simply in virtue of their humanity has here been removed.
But then that is putting it differently, and that’s what I’m saying. I don’t really literally think ‘dignity’ is meaningless – but I do think it means too many things and that some of them are suspect or tricky, and that’s one reason I don’t like it for these purposes, although there isn’t really any substitute word that I do like. I do agree that degradation of this kind is special; I don’t mean to minimize that; but I don’t think humans have only two states: dignity or degradation. I think something is removed from people when they are degraded, but I don’t think dignity is exactly what that something is. Respect is closer. It perhaps doesn’t matter much…I think one reason I keep worrying it is that I’m curious about exactly what it is that’s removed. I keep coming back to the thought that it’s a feeling of normality – not dignity, not really even respect or status or worth (although those are all relevant), but just normality, just feeling ordinary, like everyone else, all right. And the other thing I keep coming back to when I think that is that that’s enough, and that it sort of matters that it’s enough. We don’t have to aspire to anything elevated, we just want to be all right, we don’t want to be treated like garbage. I prefer the minimalism of that. Why…?
Because it seems more reasonable, more like something we all get to expect; it seems…humble, human, everyday, commonplace, like bread, or air, or sleep, or peace. Not something inflated and puffed up, not something grand, not on stilts. Maybe that’s all it is: I just don’t want the stilts. We all, all, all have every right to expect to be left in peace and allowed to walk around without being bullied or stripped naked or bought and sold, and to me dignity doesn’t feel like the right word to describe that ordinary state of being. We love our lives and our ordinary state of being even if they have no great truck with dignity.
I think I know why I prefer the minimalism.
I have this acquaintance who, whenever things have gotten a little hairy in his personal life, likes to talk in high-flown terms about What It Means To Be Human, Issues Of The Human Condition, and Problems Of Our Time. He inflates his language way past his ability to handle it well, and it’s all very annoying to listen to. (I have at least taught him the difference between “tenet” and “tenant”, finally.) And he almost always starts out with a little preamble about how he is a highly intelligent “man of reason”, which is also fairly maddening. You must know the type. We all know the type.
It’s not that he usually says anything profoundly stupid or disagreeable when you come right down to it. (Trite, maybe, but so what?) I’m sure he thinks he’s sincere, but I’m also pretty sure he’s not, not quite. It looks to me like he’s managed to insulate himself from what he’s saying with the sheer self-important hot air of it all.
Because in real life, daily life, he doesn’t actually treat people all that well. He appears unclear that women are people. He appears unclear that the people who report to him at work are people.
But that’s just daily life, right? It’s nothing grand. Not like Human Dignity. Those are just people, not Mankind. Entirely different. So go ahead and kick ’em.
I can’t help wondering what would happen if the man stopped puffing himself up as a Philosophical Rational Man of Reason, stopped defending himself psychologically from what he actually says he values, and started living it. Simple, normal language would be a start, I think.
He’s a useful example to me.
I know the type, but not well, because I always run away from it too soon to get to know it well.
snicker
But that’s very interesting, because I’ve also been thinking dignity is setting too high a standard. It’s too easy for would-be degraders simply to say ‘Those people have no dignity to begin with’ – to justify degradation by lack of dignity. In fact I think that does happen…there’s a vicious circle of mistreatment…Grind people down, then look at them and think ew, those people are degraded, then grind them down even more.
There’s something basic to the psychology of privilege at work here. If the people on the bottom of the social power pyramid don’t really deserve any better – if they’re in the position they occupy because of actions that they freely chose, or because they simply aren’t capable of occupying a better position, or because their position is ordained by God, or whatever – then the people on top of the power pyramid don’t have cause to feel any guilt about them or responsibility towards them. Given the usefulness of the consequent of that conditional for those in a position of privilege, they have a very powerful motivation to believe that the antecedent is true – that the people on bottom somehow either deserve to be there or simply belong there.
What’s especially frustrating is that, like most unsupported and unsupportable claims people are strongly motivated to believe, there are a significant proportion (probably a majority) of the privileged who can never be convinced otherwise by any amount of evidence and argument. The privileged are not only blind to their own privilege and blind to others’ oppression, they are also highly resistant to vision correction.
‘Those people have no dignity to begin with’ – to justify degradation by lack of dignity.
The thing is, you could say exactly that without referring to the word “dignity.” You could say “those people are degraded to begin with.” Or “those people have no respect for themselves or for each other.” Or “those people have no worth to begin with,” or “they treat themselves as worthless so why should we care about their worth?”
I’ve heard all these things said by people, especially “they’re degraded to begin with” or “they shouldn’t be treated like humans if they don’t behave like humans” or “they shouldn’t have rights if they don’t fulfill their responsibilities.” I just don’t see how dignity is trickier or more inflated in this respect than any other similar term. Any term for human worth is going to be subject to this kind of rhetoric and spin. That’s not an argument for jettisoning the words–that’s an argument for paying really close attention to context. We have to look at exactly how words like “dignity,” “worth,” “humanity,” etc. are used in each individual context.
Really, this is true for any words that come up a lot in any moral debate.
Just to elaborate: I’ve heard torture apologists say that torture isn’t degrading because the victims are degraded to begin with. And historically, slavery was justified as something that couldn’t possibly be degrading if it were done to people who were degraded to begin with. Or to people who degraded themselves with their immoral and uncivilized behavior.
Any language on this topic is bound to run into this kind of pitfall. In fact we could say this about any language relating to any moral/ethical topic. History provides us with countless examples of such things.
Good point, Leia. I hadn’t particularly thought about it, but given what I said about the general psychology of privilege/oppression, it really wouldn’t matter much what words you use: The oppressor is always very strongly motivated to characterize the oppressed as less than human, as lacking whatever qualities constitute their humanity – however those qualities are described.
On the other hand (and there’s always an other hand, I’m a philosopher), there is still an important rhetorical difference. Some terminology, especially the sort of “inflated” terminology OB has expressed concerns about, makes it easier to equivocate and conceal – from others, and perhaps from oneself – the true nature of one’s actions. Treating their fellow human beings as less than human is generally (although not always) something people have to talk themselves or others into, after all.
Using any kind of positive, virtue-associated word as a way to indicate someone’s basic humanity/right not to be mistreated is a problem not because those words are improperly used, but simply because people need not be virtuous to be human, to have or be ascribed fundamental worth as humans and to deserve decent treatment. Because those words (respect, dignity) have a positive virtue meaning in addition to their use (in the proper context) to indicate basic human worth, it becomes much easier for someone to slip equivocations between the virtue meaning and the basic worth meaning into their arguments/rhetoric.
Yes, we have to pay attention to how words are used in context. But who is “we” in that sentence? “We” means people engaging in careful, honest argument – because those are the sorts of people who pay close attention to context and try to figure out what is really meant. However, you acknowledge that there are people engaged in dishonest rhetoric and apologetics for immoral dehumanizing behavior, which obviously is not honest argument. So if the use of some terms makes it easier to twist and distort meanings, maybe we should avoid those terms.
One is not obviously saying something false or deplorable – and one might even be saying something true – if one says “Bob has no self-respect,” or “Mary has lost my respect,” or “Jerry has no dignity.” Because of those other uses and contexts for those words, it seems a bit less obvious that something false and deplorable is being said when someone declares that “Terrorists deserve no respect” or “Human dignity? Do terrorists accord their victims ‘dignity’ with their bombs?”
In contrast, I think your own example above, “They shouldn’t be treated like humans if they don’t behave like humans” is a much harder sell, rhetorically speaking: It is much more obvious that (alleged) terrorists are indeed humans than that terrorists deserve respect – precisely because “respect” has that additional virtue-word meaning beyond basic respect as a human. Talking in terms of someone’s humanity, or basic human worth, or fundamental rights makes the game of rhetorical manipulation at least somewhat more difficult to play for those who would dehumanize others. In contrast, I think virtue words used to indicate those same ideas makes it easier to pull a rhetorical fast one.
Any language may be “bound to run into this kind of pitfall,” but I think some language choices hand the apologists for dehumanization a shovel.
As G said, Leia, good point, and one worth keeping in mind. But G then made the case with much more detail and patience than I would have.
“people need not be virtuous to be human”
That’s it exactly; they need not have dignity either; they need not earn the privilege of not being degraded.
M-T – that’s fascinating. Sounds like a Victorian novel.