Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others

A. It was mostly pretty dull. Smith repeats himself quite a bit and goes over history I already knew. Maybe for people without this background in history, it might be new stuff. Like the Holocaust, slavery, things I studied throughout college during the 1960's and 1970's. Also, he takes too much time explaining what I thought were minor distinctions. I figured he did this because he's a professional philosopher attempting to reach a lay readership. But this adds to the tedium of the book, in my opinion. Q. But you read the whole book? A. Yes. Every once in a while I came to something quite interesting, moreso as the book proceeded. Smith is tackling a difficult and spread-out topic. He does a good job of pinning down his statements. He tries to demonstrate how aggression has evolutionary value, but unfortunately a side effect is dehumanization of outsiders or enemies. He boils this down to what he calls the "dominance drive," and notes that it especially appears in human males. Countermanding the dominance drive, Smith theorizes, is an ambivalence toward violence against others. He says the ambivalence is caused by moral regrets, but he forgets that "what goes around comes around." People might be ambivalent because they fear the "payback." Q. So the dominance drive is paramount here, according to Smith? A. Smith believes that dehumanization caught on because it offered humans a means to overcome moral restraints against acts of violence. This happened at first in the Upper Paleolithic period, he believes. "Dehumanization is a response to conflicting motives," he writes. Q. Does Smith propose any solutions to the problem of dehumanization? A. Yes, at the end of the book he devotes a few pages to this topic. He proposes two "nonscientific stances," one being that science may one day succeed. The other is apparently a "sentimentalist strategy," thus to make sure everyone is included as truly human, and no one is dehumanized, even enemies. He makes an important point in this section, I think. Q. Which is? A. He cites Richard Rorty as explaining dehumanization by people who feel a lack of "security and sympathy." Smith says Rorty is all wrong because he applies it only to his own groups, western peoples. But it certainly rings true for all forms of dehumanization, and a lot of plain aggression also: the perpetrators are afraid, and this is their response. Q. So the book raises many questions? A. Yes, and Smith acknowledges this in the last pages. He urges further study of this area, and I'm sure there will be.

DOUBLE JEOPARDY