Seong Im Hong
September 20, 2012
Weekly (Kinda) Journal Two
This week, I thought about the value of anthropomorphizing. Ever since I learned about the importance of happenstance and probabilities in biological functions, my pet peeve became anthropomorphizing inanimate objects or non-human beings. I believe that anthropomorphizing is a useful tool—it exploits empathy, our most powerful emotion. Whether it’s for understanding (“The hydrophilic molecule wants to go near water”) or for manipulation (“This elephant lost its mommy. Won’t you help this poor baby by donating just twenty dollars per month?”), anthropomorphizing exists for a good reason. However, to add human characteristics to a non-human being is a double-edged sword.
Though anthropomorphizing is an easily wielded and powerful tool, it also destroys any potential understanding of the nuances with its broad strokes. For example, merely stating that hydrophilic molecules like or wants to go near water completely ignores the molecular basis that allowed this characteristic to appear in the first place. Additionally, anthropomorphizing gives off a false impression that even the smallest molecules have a mind of its own, which is, honestly, only a couple of leaps of logic away from pseudoscientific claims like homeopathy. (“Don’t you see, the water remembers the trace of garlic!”) Anthropomorphizing is also connected to the idea of atomic individualism because anthropomorphizing assigns values in relation to likeness to human qualities. In addition, anthropomorphizing disregards non-human traits or warp them to fit the mold of humanness.
That said, I do think anthropomorphizing is crucial to the development of a sustainable earth. A sustainable earth requires commitment from all walks of life, as shown by the sewage that is Rio de Janeiro’s bay. Without the government’s manpower, a sizable cleanup effort is unlikely. Without the companies’ commitment, hazardous waste will continue to flow into the water. Without the common people’s active participation, the bay will be filled again with used diapers and other household wastes within years. The three vastly different institutions are connected by the fact that they are human institutions. And the biggest arsenal we have to connect people to people seems to be empathy. By using empathy, we can orient people to be proactive and perhaps learn more about the environment so that they will be compelled to be green whether the Gaia Hypothesis is true or not. Emotions are useful in this aspect—they do not require education because they are inborn.
Which brings me to another qualms I have about anthropomorphizing. Despite its usefulness, it seems too exploitative as well as paternalistic to be used on a large scale. It is true that emotions are the lowest common denominators. But it is also true that anthropomorphizing oversimplifies. It is unrealistic that everyone will want to learn or be able to learn the intricate workings of the universe in a molecular level, and it is true that the problem of pollution will overwhelm us far before we can achieve an adequate level of education in public schools to allow for common understanding of the universe that makes anthropomorphizing unneeded. I suppose this is the decision leaders will have to make with any important issues. Do we wait for the people to be fully educated, or do we simplify the issue as much as possible? The latter is all good and practical, but looking at the practical application (American politics on global warming in particular come into mind), I am not certain if we as more educated members of society will ever be able to simplify justly. We may oversimplify or omit details for our agendas. But how else can we engage the public? By imposing fines and taxes to those who don’t recycle? That can’t last long in American politics.
I do think that all of us who are lucky enough to get a college education are bound by a responsibility to do good for the greater cause. But I worry exactly how much is too much and when our sense of “knowing better” than the general public may cause us to be too prideful and blind to our own errors.
