Have you ever talked to your pet? “I know what you’re thinking! Some more of this sad face and she’ll relent and give you dinner early…quit manipulating!” Or have you ever yelled at your car that wouldn’t start, “Don’t do that to me! Don’t hate me! Not today! You know I can’t be late!” Or have you ever prayed to a God or Gods, with the plea that “You have the wisdom, you have the power, you can decide to act – please relieve this suffering?”
Most of us do this, at some point or another, attributing human characteristics, emotions, or behaviors to an animal, particularly domesticated ones, to objects, or even invisible entities. It’s not something new, just think of fairy tales, the pantheon of Greek and Roman Gods who were believed to share human foibles, enhanced by divine powers to the nth degree. I’ve been mulling about this, though, because it seems that the diet of anthropomorphic animals on social media, from talking dogs to willful emus, is steadily increasing. Admittedly sucking me in at times, too many times, really.
Seeing the third review of decidedly anthropomorphic art by the same painter within the span of a few years in one of the most popular art magazines, I decided to look at what we know about anthropomorphism and why it is so seemingly attractive. Matthew Grabelsky is currently showing the newest iteration of portraits of human subway riders equipped with animal heads at the The Brand Library & Art Center in Glendale, California, until the beginning of March. Riders consists of hyperrealistic oil paintings that are often witty, and appeal with the dichotomy of surrealistic appearance anchored in totally familiar, mundane environments. If you see a few of them they impress, both with painterly skill and the immediate recognition of chosen symbolism, although once you check out a lot of them they start to appear formulaic.
(All painted images by the artist, Matthew Grabelsky)
The artist, who graduated Cum Laude in both, art history and astrophysics from Rice University, explains his intentions:
“I have long been enthralled with the ways in which mythologies from different cultures make use of animals and animal/human hybrid characters to represent the mysterious nature of the subconscious… the paintings are not intended to be viewed as fantasy or as allegory, but rather as a blend of everyday experiences with the subconscious. They are enigmatic and create dream-like worlds that invite viewers to form their own interpretation of the imagery presented.”
Whatever his intentions might be, what are our own when we start to anthropomorphize? (I’ll summarize main points from a long review article by researchers at University of Chicago and UC Berkely here.)
For one, we are a species thriving on social connection. We certainly want to connect to people and we might want to extend that connection to animals or inanimate objects. It is no surprise, then, that the data show that the lonelier people are, the more they tend to anthropomorphize. It also makes sense that we tend to anthropomorphize things more when they already display some recognizable human features – a small kitten or a panda bear are more likely subjects than rats or trees or mechanical gadgets like clocks, although all of the latter can also be objects for our decision that they have a mind of their own – there is simply a gradient.
Secondly, we have a natural inclination to make sense of the world and to find ways to control it, a motivation to be able to explain and predict others’ actions so we can react appropriately. When the world is presenting us with unexpected hick-ups or unpredictably putting obstacles in our way – the car won’t start – we increase anthropomorphizing. Predictably, there is a correlation between personality traits and the inclination to anthropomorphize: people with high needs of control tend to do it more often.
Basically, then, it looks like anthropomorphizing is triggered by distinct motivational states, the desire to connect and the need to find an explanation when a situation is different from expectations.
Are there consequences to anthropomorphizing beyond our appreciation of art or desired emotional connection to pets? Well, if we imbue non-humans with human characteristics, it might raise our empathy levels, for animals perhaps the decisive factors of how well they are treated. It might help us feel protected by a higher power given that we associate them with parental qualities. Also think of the consequences for policies and laws. If you declare a non-human entity (corporations) with person-like traits it can (did) influence legislation around campaign contributions. If you imbue a non-sentient, non-sensory entity like a cell cluster (at conception) with human-like experiencing of pain and emotions, it will (did) affect abortion laws.
It also helps to sell goods. Think of all the advertising campaigns you remember that have anthropomorphic animals in them, geckos included. It also manages, in some cases, to shape social behavior. The most successful government advertising campaign of all times was Smokey Bear affecting wildfire prevention. (Successful, that is, in accomplishing its goal to reduce wildfires. That reduction, it turns out, was a disaster in the long run by adding fuel loads that are now leading to catastrophes.) These days researchers are trying to figure out if providing us with anthropomorphic stimuli of gadgets helps shape social causes like conserving energy. The data are mixed.
Anthropomorphizing clearly affects us, whether we feel less lonely, are amused, are concerned with animal welfare, find a target for our frustrations, explain the unexpected, get sucked into consumption, change our behavior or be subjected to legislation.
For me, the most important point, however, lies in the fact that people have understood the principles at work in humanizing and have applied them, in inverse order, to achieve effects through dehumanizing. In other words, treating pets like people and people like animals (stealing this from the title of the research paper) gets you something. Some forms of dehumanizing might be related to apathy – you are not interested in other people’s mind outside of your own group or from the perch of a higher societal status, dehumanizing them by thinking of their minds as inferior, or not worth thinking about at all. Some of it might be motivated, linked to hatred, or a convenient tool for scapegoating – think of race relations, strife between religious groups or fascism’s tool kit.
Psychologically, dehumanization is “the perception and/or belief that another person (or group) is relatively less human than the self (or ingroup)”(Ref.) We animalize others, and not just with language that links them to specific animals like rats, or apes, cockroaches or lice, or general groups of animals like vermin or parasites. Dehumanizing also occurs when people categorically believe that members of other groups have fewer developed, specifically human emotions, like shame or remorse or guilt. Animalistic dehumanization is often reserved for ethnic minorities, by racial origin or religion. A more mechanistic dehumanization (e.g. cold or empty, like a machine,) often happens with out-group members that have a different status, either above or below the dehumanizing person.
“Dehumanising discourses and conceptions have been identified in almost all major mass atrocities, prominently including those of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Indonesia, and the Japanese occupation of China. Often, outgroup members (or victims-to-be) are even compared with toxins, microbes, or cancer, suggesting that they are polluting, despoiling, or debilitating the entire in-group—leading to particularly prominent recurring demands to ‘purify’ groups or societies from the supposedly toxifying elements.”
Which brings us back to where we started namely looking at what the social media provide. Ain’t just talking animals. It also provides a deluge of dehumanizing speech, often incited by images like these – and not removed from FB or Twitter, even before the Musk takeover.
Value neutral language is often used in the headlines to help avoid detection and removal – the dehumanizing language subsequently erupts in the comments, and shapes people’s perceptions that way. Those lesser than human don’t deserve the same rights and protections. If they breed like animals, treat them like that.
From perceptions to (violent) actions is but a small step.
Too much to think through? I’ll give you a full week – I’ll be taking Wednesday and Friday off for the blog because I have to finish a larger writing project.
Predictably, it’s Camille Saint-Saëns for music today.
.
