I’ve been reading student essays for the past
fifteen years, and I wish I knew how many times I’ve read students write the
following: “We, as humans, ….” Most of the times I just mark out “as
humans” and go on reading.
Quite honestly, I probably haven’t given the
phrase any deep thought, but the qualification does seem to imply that the “we”
the students speak of could be something other than human. What exactly could “we”
be, if not human? Perhaps an examination of this question has merit.
Take, gender, for example. One feminist writer
described gender as a copy without an original. Essentially, gender is “prescribed”
– by culture, or religion, etc. What it means to be “male” or “female” are simply ideas, and all of us pick up on the particular ideas created by the
group(s) we belong to.
Assuming this is true, it makes sense to suggest
that what it means to be human works the same way. What does it mean to be human? Homo sapiens belong to the animal
kingdom, but when people speak of being human, don’t they often imply that
being human is different from being
animal? To be human, in other words, is to be more than “animal.” Isn’t it
interesting that students, perhaps subconsciously, feel the need to clarify
the distinction?
Human beings are
animals, although I’ve really never had any students focus on this aspect
of what it means to be human. To be human means, or so it would seem, trying
to escape being animal. When students write “we, as humans,” it’s almost as if
they are declaring their commitment to the idea that human beings have the
ability – and the obligation – to transcend their animal origins. To be human
means not to be supernatural, but natural in a manner generally accepted as
being more than animal.
Can you adequately define what it means to be
human, or do all attempts at definition fall short?
“No tendency is quite so strong in human nature as
the desire to lay down the rules of conduct for other people.” – William Howard
Taft
Comments
Post a Comment