|
[Previous entry: "The role of Ansar al-Islam revisited"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Ferrets in need"] 21 August 2003: "The Norm of Humanity"
Norman Geras is running a multi-part discourse on crimes against humanity, which is definitely recommended reading (Introduction, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4, with more to come).
'Humanity' might refer to (A) 'the human race or mankind as a whole'. Or it might refer to (B) 'a certain quality of behaviour' or 'human sentiment', covering some or all of kindness, benevolence, compassion, philanthropy and, indeed, humaneness.He then goes on to argue why (B) is an insufficiently strong interpretation. The problem is that this argument relies on the existence of multiple definitions of the word "humanity" in the English language, and does not necessarily translate well. Indeed, as Norman notes himself: Hannah Arendt evidently had a weak meaning of the expression 'inhumane acts' in mind when she described its use in the Nuremberg Charter as 'certainly the understatement of the century' - 'as though the Nazis had simply been lacking in human kindness'. The cue for her remark was the German translation of Article 6 (c) of the Charter, in which 'humanity' is rendered as 'Menschlichkeit' (the moral sentiment or ensemble of values) rather than as 'Menschheit' (humankind).The distinction between Menschheit and Menschlichkeit (or, in my native Dutch, mensheid and menselijkheid) is not a trivial one, and I think Norman dismisses it too easily. Moreover, the Nuremberg Charter is not the only instance of the term being used in German, Dutch, and likely some other languages as well; all subsequent theory in these languages is based on the usage of Menschlichkeit (or its equivalent) rather than Menschheit. I can't help but feel that sidelining this entire body of work on the basis of an ambiguity in the English language isn't really okay. It is worth noting that Merriam-Webster OnLine defines "humanity" as follows: 1 : the quality or state of being humaneI'm inclined to think that it is no coincidence that first two definitions listed are those which are encompassed by the term Menschlichkeit, which would indicate that interpretation (B) is the more valid one. This is supported, moreover, by the fact that the international treaties covering such things as crimes against humanity, along with war crimes, are collectively referred to as international humanitarian law. That said, I do agree with Norman that the description of crimes against humanity as acts which are "inhumane," without attempting to quantify the degree of inhumanity involved, is one which carries the risk of trivialising the term. However, I would posit a definition which falls between the two options Norman gives. A "crime against humanity" is an act which is not merely inhumane, but to such an extent that, if left unchecked, it would threaten to shift the very boundaries of what is considered acceptable human behaviour, and thus alter the very notion of what it means, not only to be humane, but what it means to be human. Or, perhaps more accurately, inhuman. Looking at that entry again, though, I have this sneaking suspicion that perhaps I'm just getting ahead of things, and that Norman will make a very similar point in part 5. That one's due on Friday; don't miss it. Update, 29-Aug-2003: Yep, I was jumping the gun. Norman wrote me to point out I'd skipped the course notes in Part 3—an entirely correct assessment—and that he was going to be getting to my points in due course. Keep reading, 'cause this is thought-provoking stuff. |
Navigation: home archives backgrounder Blogs:
au currant Miscellanea:
Care to contribute |
