Human Identity: Perpetuating the Myth of Uniqueness, Essay Example

Who are we? Separated by our capacity of reasoning from all the other beings on Earth, we have always tried to discover who we are, where we come from, or what our purpose on Earth is. While religious discourse sufficed for a long period of time, there came the nineteenth century, with its rapid scientific and technological advancement, which ended the hegemony of the Church. Whereas in the nineteenth century, it seemed radical and harsh to label humans as primates, our new definition of the human species must necessarily begin with this qualification. Humans can therefore be defined as primates belonging to the species H. Sapiens and characterized cognitive capacities which surpass, but are not much different, the present paper argues, those of our close relatives, the chimpanzees.

With the publication of Darwin’s Origins of the Species, humans for the first time needed to reevaluate their status and to create a place within the animal kingdom where the human species could be integrated. We needed to consider other answers for our existential questions, as well as define ourselves in different terms. Human identity continues to be a controversial issue, but today, most of the mystery concerning the relation between humans and our closest relatives, the apes, has been solved. What remains is a theoretical discussion in regards to the classification of humans. Identifying humans as a species, and categorizing it was one of the first difficulties faced by anthropologists. According to Roger Lewin (40), evolutionary taxonomists were unwilling to identify themselves in relation to other animals, because, they asserted, “classification should also reflect the very drastic ecological shift that occurred in the hominid line compared with its ape cousin” (39). As a result, humans have traditionally had their own family, Hominidae, and were the only ones in their genus, Homo. An even more radical idea was that of Julian Huxley, who proposed, in 1958, that an entire kingdom, separated from Animalia, should be reserved for men, given our entirely different evolution (Lewin 40).

The idea perpetuated, and the matter of weather humans could be called animals or not is still one of the current problems of anthropologists. Harriet Ritvo’s justified question is, “does it [i.e. the term ‘animal’] include people and if so, are people included in only their physical aspect or in some more encompassing sense” (848). In other words, the author tries to question whether humans resemble animals only in anatomical sense, or they have behavioral and cognitive functions that are shared with animals, and particularly with primates. This identification created great chaos in the nineteenth century, with imagination running loose and giving birth to stories about children and women kidnapped and sexually abused by apes (Ritvo 848), and with humans being compared to apes both physically and cognitively, to grotesque extents. Also, examples of apes being forced to dress and act like humans (849) talk about the uncertainties and anxieties that characterized this period.

However, though the answer to the question of whether humans resemble animals in any other way than anatomically cannot be answered by exaggerating by labeling human brutality as beastly, some answers might be possible nevertheless. In his article, Frans de Waal (1-5) argues that humans refuse to admit that animals share certain cognitive traits with humans, such as the ability to plan an action, or to show sympathy. Whereas, as the author argues, by bestowing human qualities upon animals, we are committing anthropomorphism, denying them certain cognitive abilities of which they are obviously capable, means that we still cannot accept the fact that we are not so special, or far apart, from the animal kingdom. This approach to studying animal behavior and intelligence is similar to that of early biologists, for whom, “sagacity was the standard term for intelligence demonstrated in animals”, Rivo (850) argues. As the author explains, the term ‘intelligence’ was destined only for humans, and represented a superior form of intellect, whereas sagacity was more of a “diffuse kind of mental power” (ibid.). This distinction is again meant to separate man from animal, and to place him on a superior and distinct position as compared to the rest of the living beings.

However, humans are not so much different than animals, except for the superior intelligence which is a result of an evolutionary process, for which we cannot claim any merit. This is also supported by De Waal, who argues that, “despite this double standard toward behavior in humans and animals, modern biology leaves us no choice other than to conclude that we are animals”(2). Thus, after comparing our own attributes to those of apes, the author concludes that we must not exaggerate our uniqueness, and furthermore, we must recognize that we do share many characteristics with animals, and particularly with apes, characteristics that are not restricted to anatomy, but rather, encompass psychological, neurological and behavioral attributes (DeWaal 2).

As the present paper tried to demonstrate, human identity is defined by our appurtenance to the primate group, and to the animal kingdom, despite the superior cognitive abilities that are our distinctive features. Even though human beings have tried for a long time to separate from animals, and since the nineteenth century, particularly from apes, studies have shown that we do share many characteristics with them, and perpetuating the myth of our uniqueness, would be a mistake.

Works Cited

DeWaal, Frances. “Are We in Anthropodenial?”Discover Magazine.1997. Web.

Lewin, Roger. Human Evolution: An Illustrated Edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 5^th ed. 2009. Print.

Ritvo, Harriet. Animal Consciousness: Some Historical Perspective. American Zoology. 40 (2000):847-852.