Deconstructing "Humanity"

IT is an often-heard claim these days that race does not exist. It is a completely arbitrary concept, argue its opponents. Whether or not that is true can be discussed. I do believe that it is hardly a very important discussion under the given circumstances: a number of terms of a much more obvious and arbitrary kind are used everyday around us. One that flourishes by far the most is the term "Humanity" and its derived terms "human", "human kind" and others. This, clearly, is a grave case of a completely arbitrary term winning a place in people’s minds. And it’s a construction which is becoming more and more common.

But first off, let's look at the term and it’s meaning in rder to authenticate its actual nature as a completely arbitrary construct. The term "Humanity", of course, designates an idea that all creatures without much hair on their body, with a large brain and a throat shaped in such a manner that they can articulate words form a common, global community separate from the other beings on this earth. In combination with this, it is often stressed by believers in the "Humanity" construct that the alleged "humans" are creatures on a higher level of evolution than the other inhabitants on earth.

This may all make sense at first glance. When one looks into it, however, the above stated and typically provided definition does not fit at all together. Creatures without body-hair are common far outside what is generally considered "human" circles. Although one must admit that lacking bodily hair is usually substituted with feathers, scales or any other form of skin-coverage. Beings with such skin-coverage are never considered human. Still there are examples of creatures without hair on their body that are not considered "human". In turn, many beings with varying but very clear amounts of body-hair are still considered "human" in essence. The same goes for the ability to physically speak, which is not so uncommon amongst creatures that are not considered "human"; mainly birds tend to have this ability. Likewise, not all so-called "humans" can speak. So this trait associated with humanity is very devious as to prove anything at all. Also, I might want to add as a side remark that "Humanity" cannot be defined by the definitions usually applied to distinguish species apart. Indeed a species is a group that can make living offspring and the Gorilla, Chimpanzee and Orangutang differ all with less than 1% of their gene-pool from what is generally considered "human" and should, thus, theoretically be able to produce living offspring with the latter. Yet they are not admitted into the "human family", thus making clear that "humanity" is not technically a species.

The remaining trait that is used to define so-called "Humanity" is our very large, complex brain. This trait, the supporters of the "Humanity"-concept claim, gives "humans" a community exclusive of all other beings. In some sense this claim is not a 100% meaningless. It is true that the construction of the brain amongst the more developed beings on this earth gives them a certain similarity. This similarity is very superficial, though, and serves to divide its bearers rather then unite them. Confused? Well, to present things quite clearly to the ordinary layman, what I’m trying to say is this: What does the overly-developed brain endow its bearers with? It endows them with the ability to make choices; choices in terms of political ideology, religion, culture and a variety of other things. Far from creating unity, it creates divergence. Two non-intelligent creatures have a clear bond in that both are ruled by instinct. The intelligent creatures are devoid of this community, however. They are set free from physical communities and free to choose their allegiance. In a sense, our big, complex brains are like claws: many animals have claws but that does not cause them to be classified as one unified group. Rather the development of claws in an evolutionary perspective has caused for diversity rather than rectification.

So the only thing humans have in common is that they are not born as part of any community but can voluntarily form their own on the basis of their views. So therefore regarding the creatures on this earth that have overly-developed brains as part of a single mass ("Humanity") is very wrong, because the very essence is that they are divided. "Humanity" as a common interests group does not exist.

So what does all this mean, practically speaking? That "humans" share only a big brain means that any call for cultural or political rectification in the name of "humanity" is a non-starter because it is in the nature of our brains to cause diversity, not to rectify.

That "humanity" does not exist as an interests group of the sort that many people want to make it does not mean, however, that compassion is not appropriate or that anyone should be allowed to do what they want to one other. The fact that we are so different should indeed lead for the most part to a compassionate and complexity-sensitive tone of interaction between us as we cannot easily guess one another's others feelings, needs and desires. As Kafka puts it:

"When you stand before me and look at me, what do you know of the pain that is in me and what do I know of yours? And even if I were to throw myself down in front of you and weep and pour my heart out, what would you know about me more than you know about hell when someone tells you it is hot and terrifying? If only for this reason we human beings should stand before each other with the thoughtfulness, with the awe, and with the love we should feel at the entrance to hell."

Now Kafka obviously buys into this flawed "Humanism" crap, but the basic meaning is good enough, not because we are alike, but precisely because we "humans" are not a common interests group and have the ability to be so different on the inside that we might reasonably be considered various separate species.