Table of Contents
- Introduction
- The Concept of Dehumanisation
- Historical Contexts and Case Studies
- Mechanisms of Dehumanisation
- Sociological Theories and Interpretations
- Consequences of Dehumanisation
- Resistance and Rehumanisation
- Conclusion
Introduction
Dehumanisation is a recurrent and deeply troubling feature of war and conflict. From the use of racialised propaganda during World War II to the systematic demonisation of ethnic groups in genocides, the process of stripping individuals and groups of their humanity serves specific sociological functions. In this article, we examine the sociological dimensions of dehumanisation in war and conflict. By interrogating historical and contemporary cases, we aim to uncover the mechanisms and implications of this phenomenon.
Dehumanisation is not merely a psychological or individual phenomenon; it is a socially constructed and institutionally embedded process. It involves discourses, representations, power dynamics, and practices that shape collective perceptions and actions. Understanding how societies come to accept, justify, and even participate in inhumane acts requires a sociological lens that connects micro-level interactions with macro-level structures. This examination not only enhances sociological understanding but also offers insight into the resilience of collective identities and the fragility of moral boundaries in conditions of crisis.
The Concept of Dehumanisation
What is Dehumanisation?
Dehumanisation refers to the process through which individuals or groups are denied recognition as fully human. This often entails the attribution of subhuman characteristics, such as animalistic or mechanistic traits, and the removal of moral concern. In the context of war and conflict, this process facilitates violence, erodes empathy, and legitimises domination. It functions by transforming moral subjects into objects of violence, enabling systematic harm without ethical disruption.
Sociologically, dehumanisation can be seen as a form of symbolic violence — a process through which meaning systems are manipulated to sustain material and political hierarchies. It is also a mechanism through which social boundaries are drawn and enforced, rendering the enemy as Other and justifying their elimination. This Othering is often supported by cultural scripts, myths of superiority, and state ideologies that reduce the moral status of targeted groups.
Types of Dehumanisation
- Animalistic Dehumanisation: Refers to likening the enemy to animals, suggesting irrationality, savagery, or lack of civilisation. This type is prevalent in colonial and racialised warfare.
- Mechanistic Dehumanisation: Portrays people as objects or machines, devoid of emotion, autonomy, or moral worth. This mode is common in bureaucratic systems of control and surveillance.
- Moral Disengagement: A broader process by which individuals and collectives justify harmful actions by redefining the victim as deserving of harm. It involves displacement of responsibility, euphemistic language, and devaluation of victims’ suffering.
Historical Contexts and Case Studies
Colonial Wars and Racial Hierarchies
Colonial conflicts were marked by intense dehumanisation. European colonial powers constructed racial hierarchies that positioned colonised peoples as less than human. These ideologies were disseminated through scientific racism, missionary narratives, and legal structures that denied colonised subjects full personhood. Dehumanisation under colonialism was not incidental; it was systemic and essential for the justification of empire.
For example, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, African and Indigenous peoples were often described in zoological terms in European literature and exhibitions. This not only justified colonial violence but also naturalised economic exploitation. The creation of colonial subjectivities functioned to enforce labour extraction, cultural assimilation, and spatial segregation. This legacy continues to shape postcolonial inequalities and global power dynamics.
The Holocaust and Bureaucratic Dehumanisation
The Holocaust represents a highly institutionalised form of dehumanisation. Jews, Roma, and other persecuted groups were subjected to both symbolic and physical degradation. Nazi propaganda depicted Jews as vermin or disease, while concentration camps functioned as spaces of systematic dehumanisation through the removal of names, shaving of heads, and assignment of numbers. Victims were stripped of familial ties, cultural identity, and basic humanity.
The bureaucratic nature of the Holocaust illustrates how modernity and rationality can be harnessed to facilitate dehumanisation. Max Weber’s concept of rational-legal authority is inverted here: the efficiency and routinisation of the Nazi regime enabled large-scale atrocities under the guise of administrative order. This convergence of modern administration and genocidal violence remains a central concern in critical sociology.
Contemporary Conflicts: Media and Digital Dehumanisation
In modern conflicts, media plays a crucial role in perpetuating dehumanising discourses. The portrayal of enemy combatants, refugees, or ethnic groups in stereotypical or criminalised terms serves to desensitise the public and justify military interventions. News outlets, social media algorithms, and political rhetoric converge to amplify binary representations of good versus evil.
In the post-9/11 era, Muslims and Arabs have often been portrayed in Western media as inherently violent or fanatical. This has contributed to widespread Islamophobia and the legitimisation of state surveillance and military operations in the Middle East. Digital platforms have further enabled rapid dissemination of hate speech and disinformation, accelerating processes of dehumanisation. Victims are not only misrepresented; they are often digitally erased from moral consideration.
Mechanisms of Dehumanisation
Discursive Practices
Language is a powerful tool of dehumanisation. Euphemisms, slurs, and metaphors construct the enemy as less than human. Terms such as “collateral damage” obscure the reality of civilian death. Michel Foucault’s insights into discourse help us understand how language not only reflects but also produces social realities. Dominant narratives shape perception and constrain moral judgment.
Discourse also creates social consensus. Repeated associations between targeted groups and negative traits lead to what Pierre Bourdieu called “doxa” — a form of unchallenged common sense. This makes dehumanisation appear natural and necessary rather than ideological and constructed.
Visual Culture and Representation
Images and symbols are instrumental in shaping collective imaginaries. Propaganda posters, news media, and film often reduce the enemy to caricatures, stripping away individuality and humanity. The aesthetics of dehumanisation work through repetition and emotional resonance. Visual culture reconfigures the body, turning it into a site of symbolic violence.
The visual realm also intersects with race, gender, and class. For example, representations of African soldiers as barbaric or Eastern women as oppressed help sustain imperialist logics. Such images become cultural artefacts that outlast the conflicts themselves, embedding dehumanisation in the popular imagination.
