March 14, 2022
What Is Anthropocentrism: Examples, Problems, Solutions
Many of us think they’re individually the center of the universe. The irony is, they might be right, but that’s a discussion for another day. The same concept in a wider context is called anthropocentrism. In simple terms, anthropocentrism is the assumption that humans are the most important entities in the universe.
The problem is not so much the belief itself. After all, many of us would likely consider the possibility that other life forms exist in the universe. Probably many of us would also consider the possibility that alien life forms not only exist but are as or even more intelligent than we are.
So, is anthropocentrism “a thing”? Does it really exist?
The question is yes, indirectly. And that’s what makes it insidious. In other words, the true danger of anthropocentrism arises from the fact that it’s subconscious: We’re often not aware we express anthropocentric behavior. That is, we might state we don’t think humans are the center of the universe, we might really believe it, too, yet we act and think as if we were.
So let’s take a look at what anthropocentrism really is, together with examples of anthropocentric behavior. We’ll see what kind of problems such behavior produces, and what some possible solutions could be.
What Is Anthropocentrism and Why It’s a Problem
As I mentioned in the introduction, anthropocentrism can be defined as the belief that humans are the most important (or at least central) beings in the universe. However, this definition of anthropocentrism – again, as I’ve already implied – doesn’t quite reveal the insidious nature of the problem.
The true problem with anthropocentrism is the ideological framework it creates: To display anthropocentric behavior means to (usually subconsciously; without realizing it) behave as if humans were very important.
How Anthropocentric Behavior Emerges
In a funny meta- kind of way, the very fact that we have a concept such as anthropocentrism and we talk about it is an instance of anthropocentrism in its own right! I mean, to claim that no other creature considers itself the center of the universe is anthropocentric in its very structure.
But besides this minor linguistic and metaphysical wizardry, anthropocentric behavior tends to assume a variety of subtle, barely discernible forms. Let’s take the question “Is there intelligent life in the universe?” as an example. It’s a characteristically anthropocentric question, on many levels:
- It assumes that conscious intelligent life (in this order) is a very rare event in the universe.
- It deploys anthropocentric scales, methods, and criteria to determine this uniqueness.
- The assumption that the discovery of intelligent life elsewhere in the cosmos will have major repercussions here on Earth involves several new anthropocentric trains of thought, abstract enough to be outside the scope of this post. I leave them as an exercise to the reader.
Another example of anthropocentric behavior is the way we treat other animals. We simply start from a position of hierarchy, assuming axiomatically that human beings are superior to other animals. Indeed, we categorize other animals according to the degree of intelligence we perceive them to have. This way we claim e.g. orangutans or dolphins to be superior to e.g. chickens or lizards.
The Problem with Anthropocentrism
Anthropocentric behavior is a problem because it leads to the perpetuation of ignorance. In other words, anthropocentrism hurts us because it limits our thinking framework, by forcing us to reflect on situations and issues only from a limited perspective. The problem is exasperated by the fact that it’s a subconscious process, keeping us from truly understanding the dynamics it entails.
To continue the example of the previous section, when we discuss about our coexistence with other animals, anthropocentrism subconsciously makes us think in ways we, humans appreciate and value. We consider intelligence (or consciousness, which we assume many animals not to experience) to be the reference point that must determine our other behavior. If advanced echolocation or eyesight were instead the point of reference, we’d be in trouble!
Take animal rights, for instance. We might have good intentions, wanting animals not to suffer (and that’s undeniably great). Yet the methods we follow are often informed by anthropocentrism. More still, we hierarchically divide animals into categories, often based on intelligence. “Smart” animals, okay. “Dumb” animals, less okay. Not to mention, we’re anthropocentric even there. We measure intelligence in ways suitable to humans (such as the use of tools).
Remember my post on Dunning-Kruger? I there said that the Dunning-Kruger effect is basically a catch-22 kind of thing, where stupid people are too stupid to realize they’re stupid. Anthropocentric behavior follows a similar pattern, in that we humans are too blinded by our ideological narrow-mindedness to realize we’re being narrow-minded. It’s quite the quagmire.
So, are there any solutions?
Possible Solutions
If anthropocentrism is a Dunning-Kruger phenomenon, perhaps we ought to seek for solutions in the same place. Once again, let’s go back to my post and see what kind of solutions I suggested there. Among others, I said: “Challenge your own preconceptions. ‘Am I really right to think A?’ ‘Have I been wrong to consider B ignorant?’ ‘Is my belief C justified?'”
The only way out of ignorance is to scratch the limits. If anthropocentrism has us enclosed in a narrow bubble of ideologically motivated thought patterns, we need to move right at the edge of this bubble and try to poke it.
That is, question our most fundamental assumptions. How do we define intelligent life? How do we define experience and perception? At the very least, we should refrain from assigning hierarchical relations based on biased factors.
Or, in the words of George Carlin, “Life is sacred? Who said so? […] You know where the sanctity of life came from? We made it up. You know why? ’Cause we’re alive. Self-interest. Living people have a strong interest in promoting the idea that somehow life is sacred”.
6 Comments
Comments are closed for posts older than 90 days
Chris, this is the most important topic you have ever written about (in my opinion).
I will collect my thoughts and answer in detail later.
Only I am very pleased that you touched on this fundamentally important topic.
Later…
“In simple terms, anthropocentrism is the assumption that humans are the most important entities in the universe.”
Dictionary definition for ‘anthropocentrism’: “of great significance or value; likely to have a profound effect on success, survival, or well-being.”
They key-word here is ‘value’. Value for whom? You pointed out the self-serving nature of the whole concept. As all self-serving concept it smacks of hypocrisy. However, hypocrisy aside, important questions of unexamined topics arise.
Quoting from my last published collection: “Perambulations”
“The old man could never understand how people could look at any animal and dismiss it as ‘only’ an animal. What makes us so superior? That we can build nuclear weapons and they can’t? I wouldn’t brag about it. That we can build skyscrapers? Come to think of it – why do we? If we count all the really important aspects, we are not that different. Take our bodies for a start. We have a very similar anatomy to most mammals: a skeletal structure with a torso, four limbs, and a head. On their heads, they have two eyes, two ears, one nose, and one mouth. They have a tongue and teeth in their mouths, just like we do. Our internal organs and systems are almost identical: heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, stomach, sexual organs, blood vessels, nervous system, the list is endless. When it comes to our minds, the important things are also shared, on a different level, but they can feel pleasure and pain, just as we do; they have emotions of love, fear, envy, jealousy, anger, even cunning, and deception. Anyone who ever had a pet for years, like a cat or a dog, knows this without any doubt. They can also think, remember and plan on a level that is suitable for them. They raise and protect their young and show loyalty to their human friends. Anyone who still doubts how we evolved from our animal ancestors is deliberately blind. Because of all these shared attributes, I get almost violently angry when I see how our ‘civilization’ treats them as industrial raw material, to be used, exploited, experimented on, and tortured without a second thought before we kill them for our comfort and pleasure. Yes, I know the argument: humans evolved to be omnivores and we need protein to maintain our health. However, there are alternatives to consuming animal flesh, just ask the millions of Hindus who can grow old and healthy on a vegetarian diet. And, in our scientific and industrial civilization, we have the technology to synthesize protein in clean and efficient factories. We are so proud of having evolved beyond the hunter-gatherer societies, but we still eat the same way as our cavemen ancestors did. Shouldn’t we have passed beyond that by now?” (BTW before you ask, I am a vegetarian – I arrived at it by logical and ethical reasoning)”
‘Anthropocentrism’ is a key concept for justifying self-serving brutality against animals or other races. It is very useful to try to ‘justify’ brutality to other human beings too by putting them into ‘another’ category where anything goes. We can do things they can’t therefore we are free to do anything to them we want to because we can. Might makes it right. So why do we bother to justify our brutality? The answer is ‘GUILT’ we know we are morally wrong and we don’t like the feeling, so we try to make it go away. The justification is ‘superiority’. We want to be god-like so we can do what we want without feeling guilt. Good luck, guilt is built into our psyche, so the harder we try to make it go away, the longer it stays, so it makes us mad and we hate the victim for making us feel it, so we hurt them so much more as punishment. The concept of ‘superiority’ is a home-made justification for brutally. We take what we want. Just ask Putin in Ukraine for an example. In my novel “Saves in Time” I wrote the following:
“…we have to deal with our species-wide genetic brain disorder that drives some individuals toward an ultimately suicidal and self destructive domination strategy. If humanity manages to weed these individuals out by education and constant vigilance, the human species may have a chance to avoid extinction.”
It’s a topic that has interested me all through life – not surprisingly, given that earliest friends were a dog, a cat, a goat and a big red hen. I’m especially impressed with this passage:
“we hierarchically divide animals into categories, often based on intelligence. “Smart” animals, okay. “Dumb” animals, less okay. Not to mention, we’re anthropocentric even there. We measure intelligence in ways suitable to humans”.
Those are two crucial elements in our relationship with other species.
The first is stratification. In pre-civilized societies, the interaction between humans and their environment was fluid, organic, responsive. In primitive mythologies, all animals can communicate with people, and it’s not uncommon for them to morph, one into the other. In the native mythology of both Africa and the Americas, some event changed this balanced relationship – usually some infraction by the humans… the invention of fire, or spoken language, or that infamous apple. It seems that they were keenly aware of something lost through progress.
Once human began farming and building cities, they not only cut themselves off from nature, but actively contended against nature. So wild animals became, not just the enemies, rivals or prey (on a level footing with man) but aliens. We also divided our own societies into rigid class structures, the ones above receiving the privilege to command, exploit and abuse the ones below.
Domestic animals followed the same pattern: we still regard them as castes: companion animals, draft animals and food animals. (The last category is not offered the dignity of killing: they’re ‘harvested’ – demoted to plant status.
Status plays an immense role in human affairs.
Hence the measurement of animal intelligence on a scale of resemblance to humans. Can a dog recognize a spot on the forehead of his own reflection? Nope. He’s not clever enough to be interested in reflection or appearance. Can a man recognize the scent of own urine on a fence-post? Can anyone with a PhD pass the 1912 Louisiana literacy test for black voters?
It’s all about placing the other in hierarchy of which the top seven tiers are already filled and closed.
Anyone below that line is fair game for anyone above it.
Thank you both so much for enriching the post with your wonderful insights!
The issue is not just anthropocentrism, but the anthropic itself — the blind belief there is such a thing as a “human”, that we are it, and that we know what it means. Sure, there is something called human, but it is a dynamic process, it is something that animals seem to do to themselves, something like furthering themselves away from their animality. Cockroaches, in Terra Formars (a manga) are humanizing themselves, it’s amazing and terrifying.
Ah, an excellent observation! Indeed, it’s yet another of our fallacies, to assign strict, clear-cut differentiations to a group blindly perceived to be homogeneous.