The Echoes of Dehumanizing Rhetoric: Tracing the Impact on Society’s Most Vulnerable

Photo Credit: Andreas Komodromos

The alarming trend of political leaders using dehumanizing language is not new, yet it continues to have profound and disturbing implications. Of particular concern is the use of dehumanizing language — a form of discourse that strips away the humanity of individuals or groups, reducing them to subhuman status. This phenomenon is not merely a rhetorical device; it has profound implications for how societies function, how policies are shaped, and how individuals interact with one another. It also fosters an environment where hate crimes escalate, social divisions deepen, and the principles of equality and justice, fundamental to both American democracy and Christian teachings, are undermined. The time has come for a collective, assertive stance against such narratives, particularly within the Republican Party, to reaffirm the core values that define the nation and its predominant faith.

Donald Trump’s Veterans Day Speech

The potency of dehumanizing language in political arenas was starkly highlighted in a recent instance involving former U.S. President Donald Trump. On Veterans Day, November 12, 2023, during a speech in Claremont, New Hampshire, Trump declared, “We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.”

Trump’s use of the term “vermin’’ to describe his political opponents sets a dangerous precedent in modern American politics. This was not a casual choice of words but a deliberate strategy to dehumanize and vilify a group of Americans, casting them as not just oppositional but fundamentally lesser. The term “vermin’’ mirrors the language used by Adolf Hitler and carries with it connotations of disgust and infestation, suggesting that those it describes are not only unwelcome but also a threat that needs to be eradicated.

This incident is not an isolated one but part of a broader pattern in which Donald Trump blatantly disregards facts, embraces conspiracy theories, promotes unfounded accusations, and uses dehumanizing language to achieve certain ends. Such language has been a staple in the toolkit of various leaders throughout history, often with devastating consequences. It serves to otherize groups, creating an ‘us versus them’ mentality that can justify extreme actions and policies. In doing so, it erodes the basic principles of empathy and understanding that are essential for a cohesive society.

The implications of dehumanizing language extend far beyond the realm of political posturing. They seep into the fabric of society, influencing how individuals perceive and treat each other. This language can incite violence, justify discrimination, and reinforce societal divisions. It is a dangerous catalyst that can transform latent prejudices into overt acts of hostility.

Historical Precedents of Dehumanizing Language

The use of dehumanizing language by political and military leaders to justify mass violence is a tactic as old as history itself. This phenomenon, far from being a mere artifact of historical brutality, serves as a harrowing reminder of the power of words in shaping human action and societal norms. This section examines three historical examples from the 20th century to understand how dehumanizing language has been instrumental in orchestrating some of the worst atrocities known to humanity.

Armenian and Greek Genocides (1914–1923)

During the early 20th century, the Ottoman Empire, amid the turmoil of World War I and its aftermath, orchestrated systematic campaigns of extermination against its Armenian and Greek populations. Armenian Christians, in particular, were labeled as “infidels” and “traitors,” words that not only alienated them from the Muslim majority but also painted them as existential threats to the empire. This rhetoric of vilification created a climate where the massacre of over a million Armenians was not only condoned but also actively participated in by parts of the population.

Similarly, the Greeks were denigrated as “untrustworthy” and “foreign agents,” fueling a nationalistic fervor that justified their expulsion and slaughter. The language used by Ottoman leaders and in propaganda served to strip these groups of their humanity, reducing them to mere caricatures of treachery and deceit, thereby facilitating their systematic elimination

A key reference for this period is Ronald Grigor Suny’s “They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else”: A History of the Armenian Genocide, which provides an in-depth analysis of the events and the role of dehumanizing language in the genocide.

Nazi Germany and the Holocaust (1933–1945)

Perhaps the most infamous example of dehumanizing language leading to genocide is that of Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler and the Nazi propaganda machine skillfully crafted a narrative where Jews were not just the enemy but subhuman. They were routinely referred to as “vermin,” “parasites,” or “Untermenschen” (subhumans), terms that suggested they were not only inferior but also a direct threat to the purity and well-being of the Aryan race. Roma, homosexuals, disabled individuals, and other groups were also subjected to brutal rhetoric that was not merely inflammatory; it was a calculated effort to strip away the humanity of these groups in the eyes of the German public.

The effectiveness of this strategy was horrifying. By consistently portraying Jews as less than human and as a dire threat to society, the Nazi regime successfully desensitized the German population to the escalating series of atrocities. This dehumanization was a key factor in enabling the Holocaust, where six million Jews were systematically murdered. The language used in Nazi propaganda was deliberately chosen to create an environment where such extreme acts of violence could occur with the complicity, or at least the passive acceptance, of the general population.

The psychological mechanism at work here involved the gradual erosion of empathy. When people are consistently portrayed as ‘other’ or less than human, it becomes easier to justify their mistreatment. This process of ‘moral disengagement’ allows individuals to view heinous acts not as crimes against fellow human beings but as necessary steps in dealing with a ‘problem.’

Rwandan Genocide (1994)

In 1994, Rwanda experienced one of the most rapid and devastating genocides in modern history. Over the course of approximately 100 days, Hutu extremists slaughtered an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus. The genocide was fueled by a campaign of hate speech with Tutsis frequently referred to as “cockroaches” and “snakes” in media and political discourse.This rhetoric was crucial in inciting ordinary Hutu citizens to participate in the killing of their Tutsi neighbors, friends, and even family members. The use of the term “cockroaches” was particularly insidious. It implied not only that the Tutsis were less than human but that they were a pestilence to be exterminated. This illustrates the dangerous power of language to transform perception and override basic human empathy.

One of the key texts on this subject is “We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families” by Philip Gourevitch, which delves into the Rwandan Genocide and the role of dehumanizing language in its execution.

The Trump Era: A New Wave of Dehumanizing Rhetoric

The era of Donald Trump’s presidency marked a significant shift in the tone and content of political discourse in the United States. Trump’s consistent use of dehumanizing language against various groups did not just shock and provoke; it arguably altered the landscape of political rhetoric and its acceptance in public discourse. This section delves into the history of Trump’s use of such language and discusses the broader implications of its normalization in society.

Trump’s History of Dehumanizing Language

Donald Trump’s rhetorical style has often been characterized by a blatant disregard for the norms of political civility, with a penchant for using language that demeans, vilifies, and dehumanizes various groups. Throughout his campaign and presidency, Trump referred to undocumented immigrants as “rapists” and “animals,” painting them with a broad brush of criminality. This rhetoric was not limited to spontaneous remarks but also found its way into policy proposals, such as building a border wall and imposing travel bans on predominantly Muslim countries, actions that stemmed from and perpetuated a narrative of fear and otherness.

Trump’s language also targeted African American communities and leaders, often using disparaging remarks and stereotypes that reinforced racial divisions. His response to the Charlottesville rally in 2017, where he stated there were “very fine people on both sides,” equated white supremacist groups with those protesting against racism, thereby undermining the severity of hate-based ideologies.

His attacks extended to the LGBTQ+ community as well, with policy rollbacks and military bans that implicitly endorsed a narrative of exclusion and marginalization. Furthermore, Trump’s frequent derogatory remarks about women and his dismissive attitude towards the #MeToo movement contributed to a culture that often seemed to trivialize gender-based violence and inequality.

Normalization of Dehumanizing Rhetoric

The real danger of Trump’s language lay not just in the immediate offense it caused but in its gradual normalization. By frequently employing such rhetoric, Trump effectively lowered the bar for what constitutes acceptable political discourse. His words, often amplified by a fervent base and certain media outlets, permeated public consciousness, creating an environment where harsh, divisive language became a standard feature of political dialogue.

This shift had several consequences. First, it desensitized the public to the shock of dehumanizing language. As people grew accustomed to Trump’s style, remarks that would have previously sparked widespread outrage became par for the course. Second, it emboldened others, both in politics and the broader public, to echo similar sentiments. This ripple effect was seen in increased incidents of hate speech and harassment, as well as a spike in hate crimes, as reported by the FBI.

Moreover, the normalization of such language posed a threat to democratic values. It undermined the principles of respect, tolerance, and the recognition of the intrinsic worth of every individual, which are cornerstones of a functioning democracy. When leaders use dehumanizing language, it signals an acceptance of viewing certain groups of people as less worthy of dignity and respect, potentially leading to policies and actions that further marginalize these groups.

The Psychological Underpinnings

The psychological mechanisms by which dehumanizing language facilitates atrocities are complex but at its core, such language works by altering perceptions. It shifts the way groups of people are seen, from individuals with their own lives, hopes, and fears, to faceless, threatening ‘others.’ This shift is crucial in creating the psychological distance necessary to commit acts of violence against them.

The danger of dismissing warnings about dehumanizing rhetoric as overly extreme or unfounded is that it allows such language and the actions it incites to become normalized. If left unchecked, this rhetoric can desensitize the public, making them more accepting of policies and actions that are inhumane and unjust. This is not just a political issue; it is a moral and ethical one that requires a firm response from all sectors of society, including religious communities and leaders.

Social psychologists argue that dehumanizing language can lead to a phenomenon known as ‘moral disengagement.’ This concept refers to the process by which ethical standards are selectively disengaged to justify inhumane behavior. When a group of people is effectively dehumanized, their suffering and the moral implications of causing them harm are either minimized or disregarded entirely. This disengagement is a crucial step in the escalation from discrimination to outright violence and genocide.

Furthermore, the use of dehumanizing language can create a sense of fear and perceived threat among the population. When individuals are bombarded with messages that portray a certain group as dangerous or subhuman, it can foster a climate of fear and paranoia. This state of heightened fear can be exploited to justify extreme measures, including violence and genocide.

As a nation that prides itself on democratic values, such as freedom, equality, and justice for all, this trajectory towards dehumanization and scapegoating is antithetical to America’s foundational principles. Moreover, as a country with a significant Christian population, this trend is deeply at odds with Christian teachings. Christianity, at its core, emphasizes love, compassion, and the intrinsic value of every individual. The Bible advocates for care for the stranger and the marginalized; it speaks against bearing false witness and sowing discord among brethren.

The responsibility to counteract this trend extends beyond political affiliations. It calls for Americans, especially those within the Republican Party, to take a definitive stand. It is imperative to send a clear message that such language and the attitudes it fosters are not aligned with the values of the country. This involves actively challenging and condemning dehumanizing rhetoric wherever it appears, promoting narratives that emphasize unity, respect, and compassion, and advocating for policies that uphold the dignity and rights of all individuals, regardless of their background or status.

The Role of Leadership and Media in Shaping Discourse

In a democratic society, political leaders and the media play a pivotal role in shaping public discourse. Their influence extends far beyond mere communication; they have the power to mold the collective consciousness, set the tone for national conversations, and influence the moral compass of society. Given this significant impact, it is imperative that both entities adhere to strict ethical standards, particularly when it comes to political rhetoric, to counteract the spread of dehumanizing language.

Responsibility of Political Leaders

Political leaders, by virtue of their positions, hold a substantial sway over public opinion. Their words and actions can either foster a culture of respect and understanding or sow division and hatred. When leaders resort to using dehumanizing language, they not only legitimize prejudice but also create a permissive environment for discrimination and violence. It is, therefore, crucial for political figures to exercise restraint and responsibility in their speech. Leaders must recognize that their rhetoric can either be a tool for unity and progress or a weapon that exacerbates societal fractures.

The Media’s Influence

The media, as the primary channel through which public discourse is disseminated, has an equally significant responsibility. In an age dominated by sensationalism and the pursuit of ratings, media outlets often prioritize provocative content, sometimes at the expense of factual accuracy and ethical reporting. This approach can amplify harmful rhetoric, giving it a broader platform and legitimizing it in the eyes of the public. Ethical journalism must prioritize truth, context, and a balanced portrayal of events and statements, ensuring that harmful rhetoric is not propagated without challenge or critique.

Need for Ethical Standards in Political Rhetoric

Ethical standards in political rhetoric are not just desirable but essential. Such standards should emphasize truthfulness, respect for human dignity, and a commitment to the principles of democracy and equality. Political discourse should aim to inform and engage the public, not mislead or incite them against certain groups or individuals. It is crucial for political parties, leaders, and institutions to adopt codes of conduct that discourage dehumanizing language and hold individuals accountable for breaches of these standards.

Counteracting the Spread of Dehumanizing Language

To counteract the spread of dehumanizing language, several measures can be implemented:

1. Education and Awareness: Raising awareness about the impact of dehumanizing language can sensitize both the public and leaders to its dangers. Educational programs that emphasize critical thinking and media literacy can empower individuals to discern and reject harmful rhetoric.
2. Fact-Checking and Accountability: Media outlets and independent fact-checkers should actively debunk false and dehumanizing statements made by public figures. This creates an environment where misinformation and harmful rhetoric are promptly challenged and corrected.
3. Promoting Inclusive Dialogue: Encouraging discourse that includes diverse perspectives and voices can help mitigate the echo chambers that often perpetuate harmful rhetoric. Involving marginalized communities in national conversations ensures a more balanced and empathetic discourse.
4. Regulatory Oversight: Regulatory bodies should enforce standards that prevent the broadcast and publication of dehumanizing content. While respecting freedom of speech, these bodies must ensure that media outlets do not become platforms for the spread of hate speech and misinformation.

Political leaders and the media must acknowledge their profound influence on public discourse and commit to maintaining ethical standards that uphold the values of respect, truth, and dignity. By doing so, they can play a crucial role in countering the spread of dehumanizing language and fostering a more inclusive and empathetic society.

Conclusion

The lessons from history are clear and harrowing: dehumanizing language is not merely a symptom of conflict; it can be an active driver of violence. From the Armenian & Greek Genocides, to the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide, the strategic use of language to strip away the humanity of groups of people has paved the way for some of the worst atrocities in human history. Understanding the psychological mechanisms at play in these examples is crucial. It underscores the need for vigilance against such rhetoric in contemporary discourse, as the consequences of failing to do so can be devastating. As Americans and as Christians, there is a moral imperative to resist this trend, reaffirming commitment to the principles of democracy, justice, and the core teachings of Christianity that advocate for love and respect for all humanity. Ignoring this responsibility risks compromising the very ideals that define the nation and its predominant faith.

Andreas Komodromos