While attending the seminar on sociology of slavery, one question always came to my mind: What has to happen to a person, that he is able to enslave another person and does not find himself in a position of regarding oneself as immoral.
I arrived at the conclusion, that maybe a process of dehumanization is required to make this maltreatment of the same kind possible. If dehumanization is required for slavery, the answer to the question of how anyone could not have sentiments of empathy and compassion towards another human being in a state of exploitation is easy: The slave is not considered human and cannot evoke any of these sensations. That assumption leads to the key hypothesis of this paper, which namely is, that dehumanization is the central prerequisite of slavery. To avoid any misunderstanding, in the following I will try to find out, if dehumanization can be seen as a cornerstone of slavery and not which economical circumstances lead to a slave system.
In terms to figure out if my thesis is consistent, I will compare several theories of dehumanization and try to find a definition what it means to be human and what it means to be dehumanized. Afterwards I will introduce three central theories on slavery and will compare them concerning their central aspects.
To clarify to what extent the theories of dehumanization can be applied to the theories of dehumanization, I will compare the aspects of dehumanization with the assertions of the three slavery theorists. By the help of this theoretical comparison, I will attempt to show which importance the mechanism of dehumanization has in theories of slavery and in the final analysis test if my thesis is sustainable.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Dehumanization
2.1 Basic Assumptions
2.2 Theories of dehumanization
3. Theories of slavery
3.1 Orlando Patterson
3.2 David Brion Davis
3.3 Claude Meillassoux
4. Dehumanization and theories of slavery
5. Conclusion
Bibliography
Objectives and Core Themes
This paper explores the hypothesis that dehumanization serves as the central prerequisite for slavery. By examining and comparing three fundamental sociological theories of slavery, the work aims to determine if the systemic denial of humanness is a cornerstone of slave systems regardless of economic circumstances.
- The psychological and sociological mechanics of dehumanization.
- Orlando Patterson’s concept of "social death" and natal alienation.
- David Brion Davis’s analysis of chattel property and powerlessness.
- Claude Meillassoux’s post-Marxist perspective on class exploitation.
- The bidirectional relationship between power dynamics and dehumanization.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 Orlando Patterson
Historical and cultural sociologist Orlando Patterson contributed with his works on social death one of the most important approaches of explaining the mechanism of structural enslavement. Patterson argues, that slavery raises the need of the slaver for spiritual and moral support of his actions. The master needs to be able to say, that his actions are ‘right’ (cf. Patterson: 35). This circumstance does concern the slaver in three ways. On one hand, he needs the spiritual justification for his personal integrity, to be able to maintain a positive self-image. On the other hand, he needs a moral justification in form of recognition and support by his community for his actions. Elsewise he has to face the threat of psychological and physical dangers by the community, if they disapprove his actions. Also, communal support helps him to save him from a possible uprising of the slaves, because he can be rest assured that his community will help him to stop a slave riot. The slaveholder is assured through his authority. The master gains authority and acceptance by the institutionalization of the slave relationships. In Patterson’s words, “the master-slave relationship cannot be divorced for the distribution of power throughout the wider society in which the master and the slave find themselves” (Patterson: 35). This fact refers fittingly to my assertion, that structural slavery is has to be constituted on a slaveholding system, which is an inbuilt and justified part of the communal system itself. This institutionalization leads to the situation, that even if some parts of the community reject slavery, they have to accept it, because it is part of the juridical system of the community (cf. Patterson: 36).
According to Patterson’s argumentation, a slave relationship is always a relation between the master and the slave. This particularly means, that the master possesses total power over the slave and owns him as his property because the community accepts this relation as righteous. In this socially justified situation of full dependence, the slave belongs no longer to any community and has no social existence outside his master. He is therefore declared a socially dead person (cf. Patterson: 38).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Presents the central hypothesis that dehumanization is the essential prerequisite for slavery and outlines the comparative approach of the study.
2. Dehumanization: Defines the core concepts of dehumanization, including Herbert Kelman’s community exclusion and Nick Haslam’s animalistic and mechanistic metaphors.
2.1 Basic Assumptions: Establishes the necessity of defining dehumanization as a total denial of humanness rather than just partial degradation within the context of slave systems.
2.2 Theories of dehumanization: Explores specific theoretical frameworks regarding identity, moral kinship, and the psychological dimensions of victimizer-victim relationships.
3. Theories of slavery: Introduces the methodology for examining the works of Patterson, Davis, and Meillassoux to find commonalities in their views on enslavement.
3.1 Orlando Patterson: Details the theory of "social death," emphasizing natal alienation, violent domination, and the lack of social existence for the slave.
3.2 David Brion Davis: Analyzes the definition of the slave as chattel property and the modification of Patterson’s theories to include economic and work-based factors.
3.3 Claude Meillassoux: Examines the post-Marxist perspective on slave systems as institutionalized class exploitation and the external recruitment of captives.
4. Dehumanization and theories of slavery: Synthesizes the findings by comparing the three theories against the concepts of dehumanization, identifying consistent patterns of alienation and depersonalization.
5. Conclusion: Confirms the initial hypothesis, concluding that dehumanization combined with power relations forms the bedrock of all studied forms of slavery.
Bibliography: Lists the academic literature and journal articles used to substantiate the theoretical comparison.
Keywords
Dehumanization, Slavery, Social Death, Natal Alienation, Orlando Patterson, David Brion Davis, Claude Meillassoux, Chattel Property, Power Relations, Victimization, Human Rights, Class Exploitation, Depersonalization, Moral Community, In-group versus Out-group.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper investigates the sociological relationship between dehumanization and slavery, arguing that the total denial of a person's humanity is the fundamental requirement for the existence of slave systems.
What are the primary thematic pillars of the work?
The study centers on the definition of dehumanization, the mechanisms of power in slave societies, the concepts of social and natal alienation, and the comparative analysis of three major theorists of slavery.
What is the central research hypothesis?
The hypothesis states that dehumanization is the central, non-negotiable prerequisite that allows human beings to treat other humans as property or tools for exploitation.
Which scientific method is applied here?
The author employs a qualitative theoretical comparison, applying sociological concepts of dehumanization (by Kelman and Haslam) to the primary works on slavery by Patterson, Davis, and Meillassoux.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body breaks down the theoretical foundations of dehumanization, detailed reviews of three specific slavery scholars, and a synthesizing final chapter that maps dehumanization mechanisms onto their respective theories.
Which keywords best describe this work?
Key terms include dehumanization, social death, natal alienation, chattel property, power relations, and systemic exploitation.
How does Patterson define "social death"?
Patterson defines it as a state where the slave is stripped of all independent social existence, natal ties, and ancestral lineage, effectively becoming an object owned by the master.
Why does Meillassoux argue that "one captive does not make slavery"?
Meillassoux argues that slavery is a systemic, institutionalized mode of exploitation between two distinct social classes, requiring constant renewal, rather than just an isolated act of captivity.
What is the significance of the "mechanistic metaphor" in this paper?
It is used to describe how victims are treated as inert, passive objects or tools, denying them the characteristics of human nature and thereby facilitating instrumental, distanced exploitation.
How is power linked to the dehumanization process?
The author concludes that power acts as a second precondition for slavery; those in power use dehumanization as a tool to justify violence and maintain the slave system.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Erik Enge (Autor:in), 2014, Dehumanization as the Central Prerequisite for Slavery, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/304120
