DistantNews
Support us
🇰🇷 South Korea /Culture & Society

The ambiguity of 'human' and 'inhuman' in language

From Hankyoreh · () Korean

Translated from Korean and summarized by DistantNews. Read the original for the full story.

At a glance

Analysis Sources not specified Context piece
  • The term 'human' is often used to describe positive, desirable traits, while negative actions are labeled 'inhuman,' creating a linguistic dichotomy that separates ideal human behavior from undesirable aspects.
  • Modern discourse, particularly in ecological and new materialism theories, refers to non-human entities, animals, plants, objects, as 'non-human beings' that are active agents interacting with the world, not merely passive objects.
  • The article suggests that by labeling negative actions as 'inhuman,' humans distance themselves from their own flaws, attributing them to a non-human category, and questions the rigid separation between humans and animals.

The word 'human' carries a nebulous meaning, often defined as possessing 'human-like qualities.' But what constitutes a 'human-like quality'? Is it warmth and generosity, or perhaps clumsiness and flaws? The common usage of 'human' tends to highlight positive attributes, implying a specific ideal of how people should behave.

The dictionary vaguely defines 'human' as 'having human-like qualities.' What kind of person is a 'human person'? Are they warm and generous like you? Clumsy and flawed like your friend? (You wouldn't use it for someone with cold reason and clear judgment like me.)

— Kim Jin-haeDiscussing the ambiguity and subjective application of the term 'human'.

Conversely, 'mechanical' describes actions like a machine, and 'animalistic' refers to the nature of animals. By this logic, anything inherent to humans should be considered 'human.' This includes greed, anger, and foolishness, qualities that are undeniably 'human, all too human.' Yet, these are rarely what we mean when we call something 'human.' Instead, we reserve that term for behaviors that align with a preconceived notion of what a person 'ought to be.'

The concept of 'inhuman' operates similarly. Actions that are deemed unacceptable for a person to commit are labeled 'inhuman.' However, contemporary ecological discussions and new materialism theories propose a different perspective. They refer to non-human entities, including animals, plants, fungi, microbes, natural objects, and even artificial ones, as 'non-human beings.' These beings are not passive objects within the human world but are recognized as active agents that interact, cause events, and shape the world, creating differences. In this view, non-human beings are not inherently 'inhuman.'

Non-human beings are not passive objects placed in the human world, but agents that get entangled with humans, cause events, and create differences in the world.

— Kim Jin-haeExplaining the concept of 'non-human beings' in contemporary theories.

Ultimately, humans tend to label positive traits as 'human' and negative actions, which they themselves commit, as 'inhuman.' Despite being a species of animal, humans create a linguistic divide between 'humans and animals' or 'people and beasts,' effectively projecting their own terrible deeds onto the animal kingdom. The article concludes by pondering the value of occasionally living 'inhumanly,' perhaps by adopting the ways of these non-human beings.

Humans label good things as 'human' and bad things they commit as 'inhuman.'

— Kim Jin-haeCritiquing the selective use of the terms 'human' and 'inhuman'.
About this summary

Originally published by Hankyoreh in Korean. Translated, summarized, and contextualized automatically by DistantNews, with a note on how the source frames the story. Not individually reviewed before publishing. How this works.

More Stories

From Our Blog